Excessive, early and excessively early DLC

[peteer01]

Saw this article in the News Feed:

Dragon Age II DLC… Already? This Is Silly

Posted by John Walker on March 2nd, 2011 at 8:13 pm.

Oh I don’t understand videogames any more. I feel like such an old man, harking back to the days when the game would come out, and then eight months later there’d be an add-on. Now I’m not sure if I’m only getting a fraction of the intended game when I open the box, what with pre-order bonuses, special editions with extra quests, and most of all, DLC. DLC is a great idea! More content, and downloadable because we’ve got this new thing called the internet. Great plan! But why am I posting a trailer for Dragon Age II‘s DLC below, over a week before the game has come out?

From

Rock Paper Shotgun via Deanb's News Feed

Reminded me of this Penny-Arcade cartoon and post about the first Dragon Age's DLC:

 

Now, there are games I want to see DLC for, and there are games where I don't mind DLC available at launch...but it seems like Dragon Age could be handling DLC better... Having not (yet) played Dragon's Age, and not paying that much attention to Dragon's Age II, are their DLC issues really as bad as they sound, or are looking for problems where there are none? Are there any other particularly bad recent offenders?

Edited March 3, 2011 by peteer01

[Thursday Next]

Dragon Age DLC, much like FallOUt DLC generally gives you a fairly decent bang:buck ratio. There's normally new areas, new characters and additional voice work so most people don't feel ripped off. Unlike MW2 dropping the same maps in the same engine into a new game and charging you £15 for the pleasure.

[deanb]

Well as curator of the News Feed you may be able to figure out my stance on the issue when that's the article I choose for the DA2 DLC.

 

 

As for the PA comic and if it's exaggerating, it is not at all. You arrive in camp, so it's not like a guy you meet on the road once, and he's in your camp every single time with a ! above his head.

I ended up buying it a few months down the line. Gonna buy the rest later. Hopefully in a sale cos atm buying Awakenings and the DLC is going to cost me more than buying Dragon Age Ultimate edition :/

 

Which I guess is where DLC gets an extra sting. It's also one of the reason I'm holding off on DA2, I can just get the Game of the Year edition later on down the line for less than the game new now with the never-price-dropping DLC.

I've not long woken up but I'll weigh in my opinion more in-depth later on.

[WTF]

I'm getting the signature edition for £5 so I'm not going to complain but the thing is DLC for dragon age is their method of combating

 

1) Used game sales. While it is a chunk of content and it is available at launch. Only first purchasers get access to it. The rest have to shell out through whichever network they play (makes sense even on the PC since you can if you choose not to authorise it on EA Download Manager sell it later since even the bioware social network lets you deauthorise your cd key thus actually enabling you to resell your PC game - which is quite rare. Not possible if you've activated it via EADM though.)

 

2) They want people to buy at launch, only launch copies have the codes and only those preordering before X date have all the codes.

 

 

While EA does a lot of despicable things with PC games and of course the whole project 10 dollar online activation code. This is one thing that they do get right.

 

 

On the true subject of DLC, yes it is ridiculous for them to release DLC early but when you see why they do it- you realise it's a business decision and it doesn't really affect you if you planned to buy the game first-hand.

Edited March 3, 2011 by WTF

[Thursday Next]

 

While EA does a lot of despicable things with PC games and of course the whole project 10 dollar online activation code. This is one thing that they do get right.

 

 

On the true subject of DLC, yes it is ridiculous for them to release DLC early but when you see why they do it- you realise it's a business decision and it doesn't really affect you if you planned to buy the game first-hand.

 

The DLC included as part of DA2 is Project 10 Dollar. There's no point doing an online access code for DA2 because it's single player.

 

Don't see why you are happy with first purchaser content for DA2 but not an Online Pass for online multiplayer titles. It's the same thing. Buy it new, get everything, get it second hand and you have to pay for the extras.

 

As to why DLC is released early, it's basically to convince people to hang on to their copy of the game as long as possible. A lot of people complete games in the first week, sometimes first day of release. Unless it is like BFBC2 or GT5 with plenty of depth and replay value and online you're going to get a lot of trade ins, which reduces the publishers profit (but not the retailer's of course bloody Chewie s.o.b.) when the market is flooded with second hand copies.

[WTF]

Yeah I am aware that it was Project 10 dollar, but I hear that it's more applicable to the online aspect these days than just DLC.

 

I'm not happy about the Online access code simply because of restrictions. It is fine on a PC title since I can link it all to a singular EA account which I can access on two separate profiles or multiple machines. But when it comes to consoles it's a tad annoying really. I'm not the only one who goes online with a game on the console and thus it sort of restricts the going online to an account rather than to a singular machine afaik. If it's not restricted to a singular account then it's alright (though the catch then lies with the fact that it's probably going to have the console download activation limit which varies between the consoles).

 

See this kind of clarity is lost in that sort of online code situation. If EA pretty much ties a game to an EA user account, which I know it does since if I ever play a demo on the PS3 or PC it does send the info back to EA, I'd think it was better. Instead of an online activation code, they should let the user tie it in with the EA account. Of course it prevents used game sales but if games came with a key that did this it would be nice because not only do you know that you can go online but also you do actually own the license of the end-copy of the game for as long as EA does business or the game license is in their hands.

 

I'm aware that the DLC is meant to help the customer keep the copy with them for a longer period, but that's for DLC releasing post-release. Pre-release/launch day DLC voids that issue completely.

Edited March 3, 2011 by WTF

[Thursday Next]

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I agree that pre-sell / launch day DLC is there to boost pre-orders. More pre-orders = more bulk orders from retailers = more money for the publisher.

 

DLC that is released soon after launch is for retention to keep new sales numbers high.

 

The online pass code downloads a 106kb file to "unlock" online access (at least it does on PS3). I'm pretty sure that this entitles any user on the console to go online with the title (not 100% on that though - I can check if you want?). Customers still have a choice, cheap second hand with no online, or full priced new with online.

[WTF]

I guess I'm not coming off quite clear either. My problem is that the online codes are not linked to your EA account but rather linked to your PSN account. And yeah the online code is to unlock access and truth be told I've not checked it for other users hence my saying it was as far as I knew. I've unlocked it for DS2 but have yet to play online on another account.

 

I know that I can if I want use my EA account on my wife's PSN account (since she hasn't yet linked it with an EA account) and thus she'll have access to the same content - though it'll perma-link the two PSN accounts to the same EA account which is not really a problem since her account is a PSN sub-account (which they now only allow minors to have for some reason...). The same way she can use my steam account on her PC user profile to play steam titles. And play EA games while on her PC user account but using my EA account.

 

I just want EA to link the online code to my EA account and not to my PSN since they know the two are linked (I'm sure Sony would not have a problem with that). This is my problem with their current system. I agree that second hand users can buy it for cheap and then try before buying online while those who buy first have the privilege. But they aren't really making it a privilege but rather making it quite sort of similar to the ME codes (since PSN activations are only for every 5 machines).

 

I know it means you can't of course play the games simultaneously but I'm not happy with the way it links it. If that makes sense.

[Thursday Next]

Yeah, it makes sense. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a perfect system, EA need to make sure that the costs of running their servers are met, this is one way of doing that. At least it's not as restrictive as PC serial codes which can limit the entitlement to the whole game.

[TheMightyEthan]

The way DLC and online codes and such work on the 360 is that when you buy or activate it then it gets tied to your XBL account, and then the first time you download it it gets tied to that console. So you can play it on your XBL account on any 360, and anyone can play it on their XBL account on your 360. Also, once a year you can reset the console license and transfer it to a new 360.

[WTF]

Yeah, it makes sense. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a perfect system, EA need to make sure that the costs of running their servers are met, this is one way of doing that. At least it's not as restrictive as PC serial codes which can limit the entitlement to the whole game.

 

You know that makes me wonder like yes cost of the servers and all that. But isn't it a bit unlikely that running costs of the servers are met by charging the user to pay to play online. I mean in theory yes it sounds like it can work. But in practice say if all that's left playing a game are 100 people and they all paid for the online pass it's only 1000 ? It really wouldn't make sense because as games get older and servers die esp for yearly recycled games we might find at best 5k players for the game after 3-4 years (which at best amounts to 50000). Most of the people who continue to play the game are usually those who played it from the start.

 

Considering EA routinely shuts servers down I feel like it's going to come and bite them unless they've planned that whoever paid for the $10 towards the closing phase gets a refund (getting an EA downloadable voucher is jack).

 

Of course there's no perfect system but since EA links us to their service it's probably best that they let you do that at least on the PS3. I doubt MS will allow them for that on the 360 but the yearly resets help to some extent.

[Thursday Next]

EA always provides a 30-60 day sunset notice before closing servers, when they do it's because less than a fraction of a % of EA online users are on the service.

 

I imagine that when EA start to sunset products that have used online pass they will stop selling passes that same day so you would have a minimum of 30 days playtime for your £10, and given that a month subscription to WoW is around that figure you'd struggle to argue that it wasn't a fair price.

 

I don't know why you are talking about the number of players at the end of the cycle. The lifetime sales are in the millions, if £10 from each sale is for server upkeep then that's tens of millions of pounds. Enough to run the servers for some time. If you add on to that the number of second hand online passes, then it's even more.

[WTF]

I think I'm probably not expressing my point about the servers shutting down aspect clearly.

 

But EA does close down certain titles faster than others just to get people moving onto their latest iteration.

 

I don't think we can definitively say £10 from each sale is for server upkeep really. It's probably just a lump-sum amount allocated for server upkeep. I do agree that this measure is done to reduce the used games sales market during the maximum visibility of the title. First three months. This prevents the stores from selling more used copies while the game is in healthy circulation or if people buy them have to pay to go online.

 

However during the mid-late cycle I do believe that used game sales are likely to be higher or on par with fresh game sales since stores tend to keep them priced competitively. It's in that phase when there should be a burst in playtime for the title where they'll probably bring in the fact that you need to pay to play online. At that point if hypothetically the sales went into 5 figures though the active online userbase is under 10k wouldn't that not really cover it. What I mean to say is that they can't use the system to keep the system running the servers profitable. Or rather that people who believe that this would prevent server closures for some games are mistaken.

 

Also wouldn't it sort of clash with when titles go into the greatest hits/platinum/best sellers section? For instance and this is odd but sometimes titles are only put on the best-sellers list 2 years post-release. The online code would obviously have to be included in that. That period usually does see a small increment of sales but is that enough to keep server costs?

 

I'm just saying that system makes sense only when you look at it to combat used game sales in the initial period but outside of that it's a bit uncertain. One of the justifications I'd heard for this (including an interview) was that this would help keep the servers up for a longer time and support it into the later periods of the game's life - which did not make sense to me.

[Thursday Next]

 

But EA does close down certain titles faster than others just to get people moving onto their latest iteration.

 

 

No they don't. They close old, inactive services. I think you're getting your chicken and egg mixed up. EA close the servers on e.g. FIFA 09 because people have moved on to 10, World Cup and 11. They will close FIFA 10 once most of the people that play that have migrated across to World Cup, 11 and 12, and so on, and so on. They do not close old games to force people on to new ones.

[Johnny]

Actually, I think two of the most largely complained-about points against DLC are brutally misguided:

When DLC comes out and whether it was done when the game was released or not feels largely irrelevant to me. Shouldn't the main focus be on whether the DLC in question is worth it's price tag?

 

I mean, I can understand being a little annoyed that they are trying to charge more for the "whole" game than normal, but you really do not need the DLC in the first place to enjoy the games (in most cases).

 

In the end, I feel that "early" and "on-the-disk" DLC are scapegoats we point to whenever the DLC or the game itself is lacking in content or quality compared to it's asking price.

[Thursday Next]

Actually, I think two of the most largely complained-about points against DLC are brutally misguided:

When DLC comes out and whether it was done when the game was released or not feels largely irrelevant to me. Shouldn't the main focus be on whether the DLC in question is worth it's price tag?

 

I mean, I can understand being a little annoyed that they are trying to charge more for the "whole" game than normal, but you really do not need the DLC in the first place to enjoy the games (in most cases).

 

In the end, I feel that "early" and "on-the-disk" DLC are scapegoats we point to whenever the DLC or the game itself is lacking in content or quality compared to it's asking price.

 

Agree with this pretty much entirely. If the game without the "on the disc DLC" is good value for money, and the "on the disc DLC" is also good value then it shouldn't matter how or when it is delivered to you.

[TheMightyEthan]

I agree, as long as the main game is worth the cost, and the DLC is worth its own cost, then I don't care at all. People like to complain about the Mass Effect 2 DLC (specifically the DLC characters), but what I got on the disc felt like a full game to me, so I was happy.

 

It also matters to me how it was developed. If it was developed as part of the game and then removed then I'm less okay with that, but if it was developed separately as an add-on then that's fine. Of course most of the time we're never going to know for sure how it was developed.

 

On-disc DLC is tougher, but just because it feels more like removed content than added content even though I know it doesn't really change the nature of it.

[Mr. GOH!]

I am greatly annoyed by the DA2 launch DLC because it was only available for free before Steam was accepting preorders. There was no way I would be getting DA2 from someplace other than Steam. But I liked Shale's implementation in DA:O as a full companion (unlike the DLC companions in Mass ffect) and am willing to spend $7 on the DLC at launch. So someone made an extra $7 off of me because of EA's nefarious maneuvering. *sigh*

 

I'm too much of a sucker, I know. But I just lurve RPG's to itty-bitty bits and couldn't help myself.

[TheMightyEthan]

The pre-order DLC in Dragon Age 2 is actually one of the reasons I'm not buying the game. Not the only reason, however. But I won't buy it because I feel like they're punishing me for being unsure about their changes to the game mechanics and not deciding 15 years ago that I was going to purchase it. Once I played the demo my fears about the combat were (somewhat) allayed, and I would have considered pre-ordering it at that point except by that time the pre-order DLC was no longer available and so I'll be damned if I'm going to shell out the full price and get less content than others who are paying the same amount.

[CorgiShinobi]

Actually, I think two of the most largely complained-about points against DLC are brutally misguided:

When DLC comes out and whether it was done when the game was released or not feels largely irrelevant to me. Shouldn't the main focus be on whether the DLC in question is worth it's price tag?

 

I mean, I can understand being a little annoyed that they are trying to charge more for the "whole" game than normal, but you really do not need the DLC in the first place to enjoy the games (in most cases).

 

In the end, I feel that "early" and "on-the-disk" DLC are scapegoats we point to whenever the DLC or the game itself is lacking in content or quality compared to it's asking price.

Completely agree.

 

While I think "on-disc" DLC is a little backhanded, most of the time those have been frivolous additions. Personally, I get annoyed by people who always take offense by DLC. Recent example would be Severed.

 

"Oh, great, more stuff that shoulda been on the disc!"

 

I went through Severed, and really, it's a little over an hour long. Maybe it could have been on the disc, but it probably went into production when certain parts of the game were completed. That's easy to say because it backtracks to visited areas in Isaac's run of Dead Space 2, but with environmental changes.

 

Point is, it's not necessary. I've theorized that there is plot content for Dead Space 3, but there's really only three minutes of in-game footage that justifies it. Besides, not everyone has played Extraction, so including this into the main series would confuse those without the Wii title, or Dead Space 2 editions with a free copy of Extraction. Otherwise, to understand the $7 Severed DLC, you would need to buy the $15 Extraction game off PSN.

[staySICK]

I had fun playing bioshock 2 multiplayer. I stopped playing it when the Sinclair solutions dlc came out because it was on the disc dlc.

 

charging $5 for something that's already on the disc is stupid I won't support it.

[Mercurial]

So you stopped playing something you payed for because they gave you the option of more for 5 dollars....sorry wut

Edited March 4, 2011 by Hakidia

[staySICK]

paying five more dollars to unlock content that was already developed and finished on on the disc at retail launch.

 

By trying to cheaply turn a $60 game into a $65 dollar game with no real new content.

[Mercurial]

It's not like the multi is subscription based or you mean that you stopped buying their games?

[staySICK]

i just stopped playing the multi, and haven't bought any of the dlc for that game. I continued to play the single player. In fact I need to finish it.