Excessive, early and excessively early DLC

[Mercurial]

That seems really stupid. It's like buying a pie and then the next day the store offers whip cream on the pie so you decide not to eat it.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Hakidia

[CorgiShinobi]

I'm in the middle ground where, yeah, it's ridiculous to offer something that's already on disc, but if it's something you don't care about, why does it affect you?

 

If you're going to get any DLC for BioShock 2, get Minerva's Den. I stopped playing the multiplayer simply because leveling up and playing was so tedious. So yeah, I'll never get the multiplayer trophies for leveling up.

[Thursday Next]

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.

 

I actually feel the complete opposite about this. Normally, I'll buy a game on day one, buy the extra content when it releases and then the GotY edition is released and someone gets all of that for less than I paid for the game.

 

As gamers we constantly get shafted for being early adopters, we pay the most for hardware and software, and usually get buggy unfinished products for our trouble, while late adopters come along and pick up the newer, slimmer, faster, better version at a lower price.

 

Pre-Order DLC Redresses that balance. The people who are loyal to a product, who want to gamble on it being good get a nice bonus. The ones who wait and see have to pay for the extras.

 

Also, Pre-Orders are hugely important to publishers as it is what retailers base their orders on. A massive pre-order number can mean the difference between missing your target, and smashing it into tiny little pieces.

[deanb]

See the on-disc DLC is utter bullshit.

It's clearly stuff that has been made before the game went gold or it wouldn't be on the disc.

And no other industry (I'm 99% sure, I ran through a fair few in my head last night) does anything similar.

You don't buy a car, then open your boot to find a pin machine over the spare do you?

Or buy a house and need to pay extra to get access to the upstairs room 2nd on the right?

What you buy when you pick up a DVD or book is what you get.

 

Only in games is it a semi-accepted practice.

 

 

As for pre-order DLC, also bullshit since most likely folks pre-ordering the game are big fans. These fans however are then further divided up by the publishers into what store they're a fan of, cos if they like game store A they get the mystical belt of levelling up, Game store b more they get dwarven beer cup of health regeneration, or online store c they get tattered robes of the wraith.

Excellent way to treat pretty loyal fans if you ask me. Not in anyway another messed up tactic.

[Johnny]

I'd liken DLC to accessories for other products. Some of these go on sale at pretty much the same time as the product they are for use with.

For extreme examples, see iPhone and iPod accessories.

 

I still stand by my earlier point that as long as the DLC is worth the asking price, it's very hard to make me give a shit about when it was produced.

 

I do however agree about the pre-order DLC! It is indeed bull to ask customers to decide upon such an expensive purchase as a game long before they are able to try it out, and it is even more bull to make them decide between what store they want to buy from.

Luckily most of the pre-order DLC so far has been pretty minor, so it hasn't really ever mattered to me.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Johnny

[Mal]

Pre-order DLC are fine by me, its just the on-disk DLCs that annoys me. Dean gave a reason why. It also opens up things that get pretty damn ugly like... "Sorry folks, you didn't purchase the sidequest portion of the game, please purchase a code to activate it."

 

A little bit related...

Wasn't BC2: Vietnam sorta was like on-disk DLC? However, if I recall correctly, the Vietnam data came along with a patch/update a week or two before Vietnam hit. So I can't dock them for that.

It was pretty sweet to just punch in the code and you're set to go.

 

----

Hope no one replies before this edit.

 

Johnny, can't say I can see it as accessories. When you buy the game with the on-disk DLC, when you get the disk or download that comes with it, I see it as me purchasing the DLC as well. Its just really weird that you got the data but you can't use it. You got it along with what you can use on disk or download. I'm with Dean on this one, I can't think of anything similar... actually...

 

The closest thing that comparable is when you rent a place to live or whatever. You can be in or use A and C but you can't be in or use B. So, buying a game is actually more like renting the data to use whenever. You can use A and C data but not B.

 

Still, I feel better if they left that DLC data out of the disk or download.

Edited March 4, 2011 by MaliciousH

[Thursday Next]

See the on-disc DLC is utter bullshit.

It's clearly stuff that has been made before the game went gold or it wouldn't be on the disc.

And no other industry (I'm 99% sure, I ran through a fair few in my head last night) does anything similar.

You don't buy a car, then open your boot to find a pin machine over the spare do you?

Or buy a house and need to pay extra to get access to the upstairs room 2nd on the right?

What you buy when you pick up a DVD or book is what you get.

 

Only in games is it a semi-accepted practice.

 

 

As for pre-order DLC, also bullshit since most likely folks pre-ordering the game are big fans. These fans however are then further divided up by the publishers into what store they're a fan of, cos if they like game store A they get the mystical belt of levelling up, Game store b more they get dwarven beer cup of health regeneration, or online store c they get tattered robes of the wraith.

Excellent way to treat pretty loyal fans if you ask me. Not in anyway another messed up tactic.

 

 

Like I said before. It's more like stay in a hotel and pay for the minibar.

[deanb]

That analogy would work more for micro transactions. A hotel analogy with on-disc DLC would be that none of your cupboards open unless you pay more.

[Mal]

I think I'm about to repeat myself and I'm not sure if I'm even making much sense but eh, here I go.

 

No analogy can quite work with on-disk DLC. With renting a place or a getting a hotel room, you know what you get. Its very well defined.

When a person buy a game on a disk or as a download, a good deal of people are hardwired to think that whatever is on the disk or download is what you paid for. The DLC data is there in the disk or in the game data folder on your computer so you got it but you can't use it. That conflicts with the good deal of people who think that whatever they paid for is what they get.

 

I think most people accept or can accept that we are buying the right to play the game, however, I think less people can accept that they can only get the right to play part, not the whole, of the game that is on the disk or download. It just totally clashes with how most people think on what they get is what they paid for. As far as I know, this conflict is unique to the gaming industry. My tired mind can't think of any other thing that can compare.

[Cyber Rat]

Can we ban analogies from the forums? Nobody knows how to use them.

 

I can't look at day-one DLC as accessories. I think there's something just inherently wrong in selling someone a game and then charging for more content right away (note, I am not talking aobut DA2 specifically, I know you can use a voucher/code/whatever. You still have to go through some hoops to access what you should right away). I think DLC should be used to get people to come back to the game after most people have played through it. Mass Effect 2 does it both good and bad I guess. The day-one DLC feels like cut content (and yes, there's still enough stuff without playing the DLC), while the later DLC did get a lot of people to come back to the game.

 

From a publisher's point of view, it does handicap used sales. It's not an alternative ending to a movie where you have to wait for the Blu-Ray version to see it. It's not a minibar in a hotel you pay for additionally. It's content made and finished during the development time of the game which requires an additional fee, an Internet connection, or whatever so you could access it. I'm ok when developers talk about DLC in the sense "Yea, we didn't manage to fit in xyz on time, so we'll probably release it at a later date."

 

But people seem to buy it regardless. I think the publishers did a great job, I have to commend them. People have no problem putting up with anything in the gaming industry anymore.

[Thursday Next]

I think I'm about to repeat myself and I'm not sure if I'm even making much sense but eh, here I go.

 

No analogy can quite work with on-disk DLC. With renting a place or a getting a hotel room, you know what you get. Its very well defined.

When a person buy a game on a disk or as a download, a good deal of people are hardwired to think that whatever is on the disk or download is what you paid for. The DLC data is there in the disk or in the game data folder on your computer so you got it but you can't use it. That conflicts with the good deal of people who think that whatever they paid for is what they get.

 

I think most people accept or can accept that we are buying the right to play the game, however, I think less people can accept that they can only get the right to play part, not the whole, of the game that is on the disk or download. It just totally clashes with how most people think on what they get is what they paid for. As far as I know, this conflict is unique to the gaming industry. My tired mind can't think of any other thing that can compare.

 

So what about people who buy WoW expansion packs? There's what 11 million of them? They spend money for something that they can't use unless they constantly pay.

 

I think you hit it on the head when you said: "people are hardwired to think that whatever is on the disk or download is what you paid for."

 

Maybe once upon a time that was the case, it isn't any more. If you buy TF2 you expect regular updates, for free. If you buy wow you expect to pay to play. It's difficult to know what to expect now from EA, they've flirted with a lot of business models, trying to see what works. Preorder PDLC works well, so expect more in the future.

[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.

 

I actually feel the complete opposite about this. Normally, I'll buy a game on day one, buy the extra content when it releases and then the GotY edition is released and someone gets all of that for less than I paid for the game.

 

As gamers we constantly get shafted for being early adopters, we pay the most for hardware and software, and usually get buggy unfinished products for our trouble, while late adopters come along and pick up the newer, slimmer, faster, better version at a lower price.

 

Pre-Order DLC Redresses that balance. The people who are loyal to a product, who want to gamble on it being good get a nice bonus. The ones who wait and see have to pay for the extras.

 

Also, Pre-Orders are hugely important to publishers as it is what retailers base their orders on. A massive pre-order number can mean the difference between missing your target, and smashing it into tiny little pieces.

I understand the reasons for it, but surely you can understand that I'm not going to pay $60 to preorder something when I will then have to shell out even more money to get the same content that people who preordered it a month ago get for free. Similarly I won't buy a game that had pre-order DLC after its release unless the price has dropped enough that I'm not paying more for it plus the DLC. And I do frequently preorder games.

 

So for instance with DA2, I'll probably buy it eventually, but likely not until an Ultimate Edition comes out with all the DLC included.

 

I understand why publishers want to encourage preorders, but I wonder to what extent those tactics hurt post-release sales. I can't be the only one who, having missed the opportunity to get certain content included with the main game, will decide to hold off getting the game altogether until I can get that content without paying more than the original game price.

[deanb]

Maybe once upon a time that was the case, it isn't any more.

 

Doesn't mean it's cool or okay. Can't just go "that was then, this is now, lump it or leave it".

 

Maybe I'm just a fan of the old days where expansion packs were expansion packs, almost an entire game in their own right. £25 netted you the Dark Crusade expansions, which was the first "Expandalone" I'd seen. That came out just 5 years ago. It came with a brand new campaign, bunch of new maps, and 2 new races (could play all races in the Single player). What sucks is 7th gen consoles have hard drives, they can do expansions. And instead it's these small snippets shaved off as the game was worked on. Games are made modular with hooks added on. DLC is planned in from the get go. Used to be you'd make your game, complete, and if it sold well then you'd make an expansion for 8 months or so down the line. If people aren't holding onto games now then either developers need to make games that last more than a day, and that folks want to keep for future playthroughs, or stop making games so expensive that folks have to trade in the game to afford the next one.

 

Still what's fucking hilarious is as a tactic to keep folks playing their games longer, it works. Bites publishers in the arse though when folks play the game longer, thus not buying another full game. Sales on console games dropped last year. Main cause? Folks are playing their games for longer periods. DLC and such sales went up too. Folks were also playing the bolted on MP components too, artificially expanding the life of a game.

 

And regarding DA2 they really expect people to beat and trade in the game within a week of launch? And in significant enough numbers to course a dint that needs to be bolstered up by early DLC? DA:O showed the game will be supported by a steady flow of DLC (and maybe an expansion) so it's not like folks will assume that the initial launch is all there is or will be to the game. Though of course if the game wasn't a stripped down shadow of it's former self (which you can also see how folks would assume segments are things removed from the game mid-development when theres less to the game than DA:O), then maybe it might of lasted longer. Then when you're done you can go to the start pick another hawke n play through the same story again. :/

[deanb]

And I think we have a winner.

The Homefront Multiplayer code thing to let you level past lvl5 is on the PS Store as of, I assume*, a couple weeks back.

Homefront isn't out for another week.

 

 

*is it me or is the store no longer in reverse chronological order?

[Thursday Next]

Maybe once upon a time that was the case, it isn't any more.

 

Doesn't mean it's cool or okay. Can't just go "that was then, this is now, lump it or leave it".

 

 

Not necessarily saying that it is cool, more that times change and you do have to "like it or lump it" or "take it or leave it" or your somewhat unhinged mash up of the two.

 

Back in the day piracy was much less widespread, the pre-owned market was smaller and games were much cheaper to produce. Companies today spend LOADS making games and piracy and preowned sales are a global issue. So, they adapt. They release episodic content which gives a better ROI (profit margins on DLC are generally higher because a lot of the donkey work has been done in building the engine and assets for the main game) and subscription games to combat some of these issues.

[Cyber Rat]

Maybe once upon a time that was the case, it isn't any more.

 

Doesn't mean it's cool or okay. Can't just go "that was then, this is now, lump it or leave it".

 

 

Not necessarily saying that it is cool, more that times change and you do have to "like it or lump it" or "take it or leave it" or your somewhat unhinged mash up of the two.

 

Back in the day piracy was much less widespread, the pre-owned market was smaller and games were much cheaper to produce. Companies today spend LOADS making games and piracy and preowned sales are a global issue. So, they adapt. They release episodic content which gives a better ROI (profit margins on DLC are generally higher because a lot of the donkey work has been done in building the engine and assets for the main game) and subscription games to combat some of these issues.

 

So, instead of the industry adapting, paying costumers have to?

[Thursday Next]

So, instead of the industry adapting, paying costumers have to?

 

The industry has adapted. Consumers changed their habits from buying a game and keeping it, to buying a game and trading it or pirating a game.

 

The industry adapted its model to supplying post launch content, subscription services, free to play games, ad served titles and microtransactions.

 

It's up to consumers now to adapt to these changes by adopting their preferred one, this will then guide the industry's next move.

[Cyber Rat]

So, instead of the industry adapting, paying costumers have to?

 

The industry has adapted. Consumers changed their habits from buying a game and keeping it, to buying a game and trading it or pirating a game.

 

The industry adapted its model to supplying post launch content, subscription services, free to play games, ad served titles and microtransactions.

 

It's up to consumers now to adapt to these changes by adopting their preferred one, this will then guide the industry's next move.

 

Sorry, your first sentence made it sound like a "screw the customers" line. Miscommunication there.

[Thursday Next]

No probs.

[deanb]

 

[Vargras]

 

 

Wise fwom yo gwaves!

[Yantelope V2]

So, instead of the industry adapting, paying costumers have to?

 

The industry has adapted. Consumers changed their habits from buying a game and keeping it, to buying a game and trading it or pirating a game.

 

The industry adapted its model to supplying post launch content, subscription services, free to play games, ad served titles and microtransactions.

 

It's up to consumers now to adapt to these changes by adopting their preferred one, this will then guide the industry's next move.

 

I used to think that this was true because I used to think that DLC like horse armor and other stupid crap would go away because nobody in their right minds would buy them. Then I saw statistics that only 15-20% of people actually do buy the DLC and I thought that was a good sign that it wasn't popular. Then I saw that it only took 15-20% of people to make it largely profitable and I realized the flood of DLC would soon be incoming.

 

It's not about providing gamers what they want becuase most gamers don't buy DLC. It's about exploiting the few willing masses while not caring about the majority of gamers. I personally hate the locked doors and closed off areas all over games now that are reserved for DLC.

 

That being said the industry probably doesn't care too much for CAGs like me who rarely buy games at release anyway. I will say the one thing that I really do enjoy the industry doing is packaging the complete game later as a GOTY edition so I can get the whole experience at a low cost. For Borderlands it was fantastic.

 

I still have not bought Mass Effect 2 because of all the DLC that's way overpriced and the lack of a GOTY edition.

[deanb]

I still have not bought Mass Effect 2 because of all the DLC that's way overpriced and the lack of a GOTY edition.

 

https://twitter.com/#!/deanbmmv/status/172476490062118912

[Yantelope V2]

By my calculations the all the add on DLC on ME2 is about $50. Seems a bit steep when the whole game costs $20.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

My issue with GOTY editions is that not much DLC is any good to begin with! Why pay $50 for the "complete" edition where only one or two of the extra bits are worth the money, instead of picking up the original game for $10 and the only good DLC for another $15?