Originally posted by sicness277

If you don't care to understand why companies are releasing Day 1 DLC that's your prerogative, but just because I attempt to understand it doesn't mean I'm trying to make them look good for doing it. Some people try to rationalize why people do certain things instead of simply claiming it's for greed or power, when it's not always quite that simple. Trying to understand it is a big part of working on how we can get rid of it. 

I do care to understand why they release day 1 DLC content. I just don't come to the same conclusion as you. I think it's because consumers buy it in high volume like the man said. 53% of people bought day 1 DLC for Dragon Age: Origins. (On a side note, mentioning only one game out of the many that Bioware put out to get his numbers is misleading).

But this isn't benificial to the consumer like the man implies. They don't do it because people are moving through content too fast. They don't do it because, like you presume, it will sell more future DLC content. They do it to make more money. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. But the man is spinning it to sound like the market requires it. The reality is that day 1 DLC is not, in any way, "required" to make the industry work or make consumers happy. Actually, it often has the effect of making consumers unhappy.

I'm also not sure where I ever mentioned, at any time, greed or power. I intentionally did not use those types of arguments because I feel like they are unfair. I feel like you used them here to attempt to apply them to me, which I find... unsettling. I know that you said "some people," but because you quoted me, it seems like the intended target might have been me.

Ok so here is a question and a scenario.

DLC is developed by teams detached from the ones working on the game, if that DLC is ready on day 1 would you rather they heald it back for 30 days for PR reasons?

Aslong as the DLC adds to my experience, both inside and out of the main game, I personally am ok with it.  Even if its out on day 1, the alternative is the episodic content method and well... that does not work either.

What I do wish they would do though is A make a clear upfront statement of intent as to the MINIMUM Amount of DLC coming out for the game (not time scales just the amount and what type of content) and then allow for a "Full pass" to be bought in advance that gives me access to the entire game (and given as part of any collectors edition).

Ala-carte gaming is here its now about making the noise to state how we want it.

Originally posted by Kothoses

Ok so here is a question and a scenario.

 

DLC is developed by teams detached from the ones working on the game, if that DLC is ready on day 1 would you rather they heald it back for 30 days for PR reasons?

 

Aslong as the DLC adds to my experience, both inside and out of the main game, I personally am ok with it.  Even if its out on day 1, the alternative is the episodic content method and well... that does not work either.

 

What I do wish they would do though is A make a clear upfront statement of intent as to the MINIMUM Amount of DLC coming out for the game (not time scales just the amount and what type of content) and then allow for a "Full pass" to be bought in advance that gives me access to the entire game (and given as part of any collectors edition).

 

Ala-carte gaming is here its now about making the noise to state how we want it.

Here's a counter question and scenario then:

Imagine you're the guy who makes the calls about the production and design and your goal is to maximize profits for the shareholders.

You know day 1DLC is profitable so:

Would you:   A. hire a new team of developers to develop specific day 1 DLC

                      B: Cut of some of you developer team who's working on the main game and focus on the DLC

                      C: Take a chunk out of your main game and use it as DLC (note B and C are highly similar)

Remember, you want to maximize profits. No other goals.

Originally posted by Kothoses

Ok so here is a question and a scenario.

 

DLC is developed by teams detached from the ones working on the game, if that DLC is ready on day 1 would you rather they heald it back for 30 days for PR reasons?

 

Aslong as the DLC adds to my experience, both inside and out of the main game, I personally am ok with it.  Even if its out on day 1, the alternative is the episodic content method and well... that does not work either.

 

What I do wish they would do though is A make a clear upfront statement of intent as to the MINIMUM Amount of DLC coming out for the game (not time scales just the amount and what type of content) and then allow for a "Full pass" to be bought in advance that gives me access to the entire game (and given as part of any collectors edition).

 

Ala-carte gaming is here its now about making the noise to state how we want it.

In your scenario, the maker is making a lot of assumptions.  Assumptions of mechanics and direction not changing.  Assumptions about sales and further interest.  The DLC sales are based on the same factors that are pushing sales of your actual release.  Plus, it means buyers are expecting certain things instead of trying the release before buying the DLC.  I'm sure it happens, but I'm not sure it's cost effective. 

What happens if you get major pushback about a feature in the game that is also already in the DLC.  With the DLC already being out as well, you limit your sales of the DLC unless you pull it to make changes.  What about people who already bought it?  Do you roll with it and make changes in DLC 2 or do you patch in changes that affect the release and the DLC?

Do you think buyer's remorse is better or worse for the person who bought the release and the DLC sight unseen?  As in, if someone buy's both and invests more at the start as a result, does that make the expectations higher and the possible let down worse?

Lies, we all know bio has absolutely no idea what players want, this article is bs.

Originally posted by Loke666

Yeah, we love paying for stuff that Bioware made with the game but decided to let us pay extra money for instead of include it in the game just like everyone else.

It is fine to add miniexpansions and expansions to a released game but all the stuff you make while you do the game should be included in it.

Anyone thinking DLCs will give you more to play is wrong, the old way when they released the full game and gave you full expansions actually gave you more content for less money.

Yeah, enough people will actually buy those DLCs but not because they want DLCs but because they more or less feel forced to buy the entire game.

This is just EA raising their prices a lot. If it would have been about choices they would lower the prices of the game and its expansions as much as the DLCs cost (or at least half of it), it is about shaking out some more money of the poor customers.

Personally I think it just leads to more piracy instead, it does not feel as morally bad when the devs are screwing us first. Or people will do like me and just get another game that does not charge way too much for small and rather pointless stuff (like the Emporium in DA).

Bioware have really lost it since EA bought them up.

Do you honestly think other companies aren't working on DLC content as the game ships? Bioware just let it be available from the first day while other companies might wait a month or two. As long as the game is complete and the DLC is just add on stuff, how were you screwed? Of course they are trying to make more money. I remember like you do when all of this extra stuff was free or came out in a full fleged expansion pack. The thing is, games have production budgets bigger than movies and they need to recoup their investments and make a large enough profit to invest in the production of other games. If it keeps more people employed for a longer period of time and allows them to make more quality games then I am all for it.

Originally posted by Calerxes
To me its this or the initial price of the game goes up, with this method you get to decide whether you buy it or not the other way you have no choice and we know at the end of the day its all about money and gamers want to spend fuck all and get the world for it.

Isn't the standard US $60 game supposed to jump to US $70 a game this fall?

I think it has more to do with bang for the buck.  People want to feel like their investment was worthwhile.  Not everyone expects everything for free, but pretty much everyone wants to feel like they got their money's worth.  Which, is very subjective.

Games keep hitting record sales numbers in a genre that keeps listing dropping earnings.  So, either something is not adding up, or the profits are going to fewer makers.  But, just like most companies who layoff employees first and look for efficiency gains after in the face of their employees having lower morale and looking outside the company, the gaming industry is looking for ways to increase costs first to make up for lower bottom line profits.

Originally posted by CyclopsSlay
At that rate, why not make it 100% DLC? Every quest, every mission, every weapon, every mob opponent? That way players can consume it all at their speed and the devs/producers can suck even more cash from the players pockets.

Because it would increase the overall cost of the game as a whole.  Which, not everyone will go for.

Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

Do you honestly think other companies aren't working on DLC content as the game ships? Bioware just let it be available from the first day while other companies might wait a month or two. As long as the game is complete and the DLC is just add on stuff, how were you screwed? Of course they are trying to make more money. I remember like you do when all of this extra stuff was free or came out in a full fleged expansion pack. The thing is, games have production budgets bigger than movies and they need to recoup their investments and make a large enough profit to invest in the production of other games. If it keeps more people employed for a longer period of time and allows them to make more quality games then I am all for it.

Probably a case of nostalgia here, but the latest batch of games weren't really what one would call quality games. BF3, COD, ME 3, ... Imagine if they'd asked for extra money back in the NES days. "Sure you get to play Super Mario Bros, but if you want the flower power up or the star power up, it's gonna cost you an extra 15 bucks". (leaving aside that it wouldn't have been technically possible, of course).

It's like someone said earlier in the thread. For now DLC seems to be "extra" content, but nothing's stopping the suits from offering you a very basic game, f.i. a shooter with one gun, one map, one role, a short SP campaign, and asking you for more after you've dropped the first $60.

I remember when Deus Ex HR was realeased, i bought the post launch DLC (the boat level). I felt ripped off when i realized it didn't even have a proper boss at the end of said expac. They should have included it in the original game, but they went the cash grab-way.

My mistake though, i'm a sucker for falling for such a simple marketting trick.

Originally posted by paroxysm

Originally posted by Calerxes
To me its this or the initial price of the game goes up, with this method you get to decide whether you buy it or not the other way you have no choice and we know at the end of the day its all about money and gamers want to spend fuck all and get the world for it.

Isn't the standard US $60 game supposed to jump to US $70 a game this fall?

I think it has more to do with bang for the buck.  People want to feel like their investment was worthwhile.  Not everyone expects everything for free, but pretty much everyone wants to feel like they got their money's worth.  Which, is very subjective.

Games keep hitting record sales numbers in a genre that keeps listing dropping earnings.  So, either something is not adding up, or the profits are going to fewer makers.  But, just like most companies who layoff employees first and look for efficiency gains after in the face of their employees having lower morale and looking outside the company, the gaming industry is looking for ways to increase costs first to make up for lower bottom line profits.

Off topic, but do you know why there is a sudden increase?  Who controls the standard, who decided to change it?  I understand inflation, but why is there such a jump and why now?  

Inflation can't have much to do with it because the price of games is going up in every country similarly, yet rates of inflation vary.  Is it just down to rising costs of game production, and companies universally raising their game price to compensate?

I would be interested in knowing.

Originally posted by QuicklyScott

 

Off topic, but do you know why there is a sudden increase?  Who controls the standard, who decided to change it?  I understand inflation, but why is there such a jump and why now?  

Inflation can't have much to do with it because the price of games is going up in every country similarly, yet rates of inflation vary.  Is it just down to rising costs of game production, and companies universally raising their game price to compensate?

I would be interested in knowing.

There is no 'standard' and you see the difference in price already, it is just 'hidden'.

COD / BF with their Elite/Premium model.

Most games have DLC and different sets of DLC / prices of DLC; Season pass or 5 DLC for $60 etc

We've had 'expansion' packs for years now so DLC would be an extension of that. Nothing that new to be honest.

Whether day 1 DLC appeals to you or not is a personal opinion but from a numbers point of view, gamers buy it so a company does it.

Originally posted by paroxysm

Originally posted by Calerxes
To me its this or the initial price of the game goes up, with this method you get to decide whether you buy it or not the other way you have no choice and we know at the end of the day its all about money and gamers want to spend fuck all and get the world for it.

Isn't the standard US $60 game supposed to jump to US $70 a game this fall?

I think it has more to do with bang for the buck.  People want to feel like their investment was worthwhile.  Not everyone expects everything for free, but pretty much everyone wants to feel like they got their money's worth.  Which, is very subjective.

Games keep hitting record sales numbers in a genre that keeps listing dropping earnings.  So, either something is not adding up, or the profits are going to fewer makers.  But, just like most companies who layoff employees first and look for efficiency gains after in the face of their employees having lower morale and looking outside the company, the gaming industry is looking for ways to increase costs first to make up for lower bottom line profits.

Sorry I wouldn't know I still use pounds, shillings and pence this side of the pond.

I understand what you are saying but games are really costing so much more than they use to and like the music industry in order recoup those costs they put more money into fewer artists ie games and thus need to make the games appeal to a wider audience thus the perceived dumbing down of games, bigger sales and the lack of value seen. But the costs are still there and players want games to be bigger, better, prettier, cheaper and that isn't going to happen so you have DLC which at least gives the buyer the choice in the matter. This is no longer an industry where you can make AAA games with a one or two person team and £500 budget. Gamers have to wake up to that fact or support the indie industry like I do with music, though with games you have to lower your scope on what you are getting, luckily music isn't like that.

Originally posted by Ambros123
I was really stoked for ME3.... then I heard about how the ending was so shallow and about the DLC stuff.... then I bycotted ME3 until it's dirt cheap.  DLC is corperation greed plain n simple.  You spend 10-15 bucks for an hour of game time content which is what I experienced in ME2 which left me dissatisfied and felt cheated.  DA:O was when some corperate nut ball was like "hey... we can make some serious money on DLC stuff" and started the nickle and diming.

Even though I'm a gamer, the above logic doesn't make sense to me.

If we take this 'DLC is evil' logic, why did gamers accept expansion packs?

Granted expansions packs are a bit larger than DLC but they were also more expensive; around $40.

Originally posted by QuicklyScott

Originally posted by paroxysm

Originally posted by Calerxes
To me its this or the initial price of the game goes up, with this method you get to decide whether you buy it or not the other way you have no choice and we know at the end of the day its all about money and gamers want to spend fuck all and get the world for it.

Isn't the standard US $60 game supposed to jump to US $70 a game this fall?

I think it has more to do with bang for the buck.  People want to feel like their investment was worthwhile.  Not everyone expects everything for free, but pretty much everyone wants to feel like they got their money's worth.  Which, is very subjective.

Games keep hitting record sales numbers in a genre that keeps listing dropping earnings.  So, either something is not adding up, or the profits are going to fewer makers.  But, just like most companies who layoff employees first and look for efficiency gains after in the face of their employees having lower morale and looking outside the company, the gaming industry is looking for ways to increase costs first to make up for lower bottom line profits.

Off topic, but do you know why there is a sudden increase?  Who controls the standard, who decided to change it?  I understand inflation, but why is there such a jump and why now?  

Inflation can't have much to do with it because the price of games is going up in every country similarly, yet rates of inflation vary.  Is it just down to rising costs of game production, and companies universally raising their game price to compensate?

I would be interested in knowing.

The price of fuel (Gas and Electricity) has gone through the roof in the last few years and that puts everything up as its the basis of our economies, I'm suprised it hasn't happened earlier. There are two ways to put prices up one is small incremental rises regularly or one big one not so often it looks like they've gone for the latter.

Originally posted by Calerxes

Originally posted by paroxysm

Originally posted by Calerxes
To me its this or the initial price of the game goes up, with this method you get to decide whether you buy it or not the other way you have no choice and we know at the end of the day its all about money and gamers want to spend fuck all and get the world for it.

Isn't the standard US $60 game supposed to jump to US $70 a game this fall?

I think it has more to do with bang for the buck.  People want to feel like their investment was worthwhile.  Not everyone expects everything for free, but pretty much everyone wants to feel like they got their money's worth.  Which, is very subjective.

Games keep hitting record sales numbers in a genre that keeps listing dropping earnings.  So, either something is not adding up, or the profits are going to fewer makers.  But, just like most companies who layoff employees first and look for efficiency gains after in the face of their employees having lower morale and looking outside the company, the gaming industry is looking for ways to increase costs first to make up for lower bottom line profits.

 

Sorry I wouldn't know I still use pounds, shillings and pence this side of the pond.

 

I understand what you are saying but games are really costing so much more than they use to and like the music industry in order recoup those costs they put more money into fewer artists ie games and thus need to make the games appeal to a wider audience thus the perceived dumbing down of games, bigger sales and the lack of value seen. But the costs are still there and players want games to be bigger, better, prettier, cheaper and that isn't going to happen so you have DLC which at least gives the buyer the choice in the matter. This is no longer an industry where you can make AAA games with a one or two person team and £500 budget. Gamers have to wake up to that fact or support the indie industry like I do with music, though with games you have to lower your scope on what you are getting, luckily music isn't like that.

I posted it as US dollars as that is how it was presented to me.  I could have done the conversion, but is that exactly what you pay or is that rounded off to a nice sales effective number.  It's just something I heard about a game coming out in that time frame that will list for the new cost that others are supposed to follow.  I won't pretend to know the reason for it.

Not every cost increase is due to production cost increases or inflation in general.  I worked for a company  in an industry that had a cost evaluation every year at the same time.  That cost was the basis for what we charged after factoring in several operational costs.  Then there was another cost increase.  Which, appalled me.  They even had a name for it that they used.  Brand equity.  That was the term incorrectly used by them to describe increasing our costs in relation to the costs of our competitors to ensure that we all made more money.  Essentially...."If they can get that price for it, so can we.  And by asking a relatively equal price for it, we guarante that price and it's associated profit for all."  Between these companies, thanks to certain laws, they controlled all of the competing brands in that segment of the market.

I'm not saying that is what is going on here.  Just a true story that shows another side to how some companies work. 

Originally posted by Xerith
Or, you know, you could add that content directly to the game for free and players would have more to do for free.... The amount of BS from developers coming out of Gamescom this year is astounding. 

You could tell the entire gaming world this, explaining it with pretty pictures, and they will show total outrage right up until the moment that Bioware has their next game's pre-order box available.

It's as if devs have found some futuristic technology that allows pictures of virtual hats in pre-order ads to release seratonin through the target audience's monitor.