A Discussion on DLC

noodler

I am sure this issue has come up a million times before but it is something that has been bugging me for a while.

With regards the actual value of these add-ons some people like EG have questioned their worth in the case of the new Fable two DLC but my concern goes a little deeper.

Are firms/companies/developers, whatever, simply selling us stuff online that they would have put into the original game if the online arena did not exist?

I haven't bought Soul Caliber but there were certainly plenty of complaints around here that they went and sold you the supposedly 'exclusive' platform exclusive character (yoda or DV) a short while after the game's relese. Clearly this is one of the more blatant examples but still.

I wouldn't attack all DLC, I mean some of the LBP stuff looks good (and understandably wasn't all done in time for the game), ditto the impressive-looking (at least) Fallout 3 exapnsions that are on the way.

Anyway, it is a worry that companies will try and sell us something that would normally have been on the game disc by just leaving it aside for months and then milking the consumer.

Discuss?

thebman

noodler wrote: »

I am sure this issue has come up a million times before but it is something that has been bugging me for a while.

With regards the actual value of these add-ons some people like EG have questioned their worth in the case of the new Fable two DLC but my concern goes a little deeper.

Are firms/companies/developers, whatever, simply selling us stuff online that they would have put into the original game if the online arena did not exist?

I haven't bought Soul Caliber but there were certainly plenty of complaints around here that they went and sold you the supposedly 'exclusive' platform exclusive character (yoda or DV) a short while after the game's relese. Clearly this is one of the more blatant examples but still.

I wouldn't attack all DLC, I mean some of the LBP stuff looks good (and understandably wasn't all done in time for the game), ditto the impressive-looking (at least) Fallout 3 exapnsions that are on the way.

Anyway, it is a worry that companies will try and sell us something that would normally have been on the game disc by just leaving it aside for months and then milking the consumer.

Discuss?

Its not that big a worry. If they are ripping you off, don't buy and let the people that are dumb enough to pay for that crap, pay for it.

Ciaran500

Well its certainly going to happen in some cases but I don't think most are leaving out content just to sell it later.

I'm not sure of excat time line of a game but I'd imagine that at least for the last few months of development graphic artists, level designers etc. have alot less to do on the game as its being bug tested and fixed. So these can be moved to work on new content that can be ready shortly after release for some extra cash.

GothPunk

Has anybody read this? It's about how a sizeable portion of the DLC for Tomb Raider Underworld was supposed to be in the original release of the game.

(Former) Crystal Dynamics employee wrote:

Ask anyone who is part of it and if they are honest they will tell you around 40% of the DLC was meant to be in the game itself, originally. But it was decided later on to take out those parts because they were expecting most sales on the 360 and the DLC the way it looked at the time was looking to be a bit 'thin'. So we were asked to cut some parts out to be used in the DLC.

So in some cases I guess there is truth to DLC paranoia. Eidos are now pretty well known for their dodgy dealings due to their financial troubles (e.g. the whole ad-space/good reviews of Kane and Lynch exchange on GameSpot), so it could be a practice that becomes more common in the short term as some other studios are loosing money.

I don't have a problem with quality DLC. I recently bought the MGS level pack for LittleBIGPlanet and I love it. It makes sense as a DLC pack - it's removed from the main story levels and it's worth the money as it adds a new gameplay mechanic. It doesn't feel like they just removed it from the final game so they could charge me for it later.

I do have a problem with crap DLC that just doesn't really add anything to the game or charges too much for something relatively minor. The DLC for Soul Calibur IV is really just for lazy people - apart from Darth Vader/Yoda the majority of the content seems to be for people who are too lazy to just unlock the content by playing the game (Read the disclaimer on the Soul Calibur IV DLC). The DLC for Dead Space isn't really that interesting and is priced far too high. Maybe there's a market for people who want to have a Line Cutter with a flame paint job and EA are jsut serving those customers?

Valve and Criterion have shown that free (quality) DLC can really boost sales of a game. The other day, Valve gave an interesting talk about how they do business.

Jason Holtman, Valve wrote:

Holtman also talks about giving away a character class for Team Fortress 2. Traditional thinking says: "You monetize investments by charging for them." But, he reveals, when Valve gives away it's content, sales spike for several products, both at retail and through Steam.

It'd be nice if more studios adopted this business model but I doubt many will.

Retr0gamer

Does anyone remember the days when games were supported after retail? On the PC new levels and updates were provided for free and you never had to pay for them. Also remember when stuff like outfits and new weapons and such were unlocked in games, no paying for them. I think it's mainly a cod. I really don't mind paying a decent acceptable amount for an expansion pack portion of extended gameplay but paying for stuff you used to get for free is a joke.

tba

next up... paying for patches

steviec

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Does anyone remember the days when games were supported after retail? On the PC new levels and updates were provided for free and you never had to pay for them. Also remember when stuff like outfits and new weapons and such were unlocked in games, no paying for them. I think it's mainly a cod. I really don't mind paying a decent acceptable amount for an expansion pack portion of extended gameplay but paying for stuff you used to get for free is a joke.

But what entitles you to free stuff? It costs a hell of a lot more to make games these days than it did in the past, and they're charging roughly the same price at retail (if you take inflation into account they've gotten a lot cheaper), so DLC is a very welcome way to a) keep developers ticking over and b) give added value to games in the long term with cheap add ons for those who choose to avail of them.

Just because some developers gave away something for free in the past, doesn't mean that it has no value or that you should have the right to it free in future.

Like all things, there's good DLC and bad DLC and it's up to the consumer to vote with their wallet, but overall I'd say it's been an extremely positive and valuable contribution to the industry.

pixelburp

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Does anyone remember the days when games were supported after retail? On the PC new levels and updates were provided for free and you never had to pay for them. Also remember when stuff like outfits and new weapons and such were unlocked in games, no paying for them. I think it's mainly a cod. I really don't mind paying a decent acceptable amount for an expansion pack portion of extended gameplay but paying for stuff you used to get for free is a joke.

Yeah I remember those times; it's called TF2. And CoD4 to a lesser extent I think if you look at the model of paid DLC & those who have applied it, generally it has been a failure. In particular where the price didn't match the content delivered & doubly so when the game in question is on the PC.
For instance, how many people bought the various DLC packages for Oblivion compared to those who just downloaded the 1000s of free mods & add-ons? More recently, how many people paid for those pitiful additions for Far Cry 2, when most just wanted a less craptacular single player experience?

I disagree though that the simple consumer policy is not to buy the DLC if it offends them so much. It's a hard attitude to take when a game you otherwise enjoy is essentially unfinished / incomplete & the DLC teases you with promises of the whole experience.

Kiith

As others have said, DLC when done well is great. Mass Effect had a nice bit of content released with 'Bring Down the Sky'. Was only 90-odd minutes long, but for a few quid, it was worth it. Oblivion was a mixed bag, as many of the offered content has been far surpassed by the mods that are available now. I have no problem paying for them if they actually add something, and skin changes or new texture effects (i'm looking at you EA) are not something that people should pay for, but should be included in the game.

noodler

steviec wrote: »

But what entitles you to free stuff? It costs a hell of a lot more to make games these days than it did in the past, and they're charging roughly the same price at retail (if you take inflation into account they've gotten a lot cheaper), so DLC is a very welcome way to a) keep developers ticking over and b) give added value to games in the long term with cheap add ons for those who choose to avail of them.

Just because some developers gave away something for free in the past, doesn't mean that it has no value or that you should have the right to it free in future.

Like all things, there's good DLC and bad DLC and it's up to the consumer to vote with their wallet, but overall I'd say it's been an extremely positive and valuable contribution to the industry.

What era would you be speaking off exactly?

I think games are certainly more expensive than they were in say the C64 era (it is hard to judge cos wages and our currency have changed as well though). Also the consumer base for video games is much bigger than it used to be I mean right now there are 50m Wiis, 28m 360s, 20m PS3s, 140m Ps2s etc etc. Theres a PC in every house, whether or not they are used to play games is a different issue.

There are certainly more people buying game than ever before.

L31mr0d

Personally I don't see DLC stopping anytime soon, but something has to be done to reign it in a bit. I can understand optional outfits or extra characters, but taking a player out of SCIV or weapons out of a game and making you pay for them as extra is ridiculous. What next... the last level of the game being made DLC only? Soon enough there will be whole parts of the game that will be removed that will lead to a different experience depending on how much money you are willing to spend.

GothPunk

Is it fair to say that Microsoft have had a big influence on charging for DLC? I recall hearing that Valve said they were going to wait for enough content to be available to add to Team Fortress 2 before they will release the update on Xbox Live, because you have to charge for stuff on Live. Is there any truth to this?

I have Mass Effect on PC. I got the 'Bring down the Sky' DLC for free, but if I'd bought it for the 360, I'd have to pay for it. PC wins on so many fronts.

If a developer releases a game on the PC and it's successful, they can release an expansion pack. You don't really see many expansion packs for console games, so is paid for DLC not a good way for developers to extend the life of a console release where an expansion pack might not work?

Chumpski

GothPunk wrote: »

Has anybody read this? It's about how a sizeable portion of the DLC for Tomb Raider Underworld was supposed to be in the original release of the game.

Idiots. And then they are complaining it didn't sell to their expectations! That kind of crap makes me glad to buy a game second hand and have Eidos not see a cent.

I on principle, am totally against game piracy but if games publishers carry on like this i might just change my mind. No way ill pay full price for a game and pay extra for levels or unlockables.

On the other hand i would be for downloading and playing a game in an episodic format for a reasonable price per section like what Sony did for Siren this year.

pixelburp

GothPunk wrote: »

If a developer releases a game on the PC and it's successful, they can release an expansion pack. You don't really see many expansion packs for console games, so is paid for DLC not a good way for developers to extend the life of a console release where an expansion pack might not work?

Well this is where the argument diverges I guess; for the consoles, paid-for DLC comes with the territory because you're dealing with closed formats / hardware. PC gaming goes hand in hand with the modding community & for years the support of this community extended the lifetime / boosted sales of PC games (the most obvious of this would be CS of course). Applying the paid DLC format to PC gaming rubs some people up the wrong way because it goes against the grain.

Removing legitimate content from the final game to sell on later as DLS is just plain dishonest though. It's like buying a car but the garage withholding the back sears until you pay them extra.

noodler

GothPunk wrote: »

Is it fair to say that Microsoft have had a big influence on charging for DLC? I recall hearing that Valve said they were going to wait for enough content to be available to add to Team Fortress 2 before they will release the update on Xbox Live, because you have to charge for stuff on Live. Is there any truth to this?

I have Mass Effect on PC. I got the 'Bring down the Sky' DLC for free, but if I'd bought it for the 360, I'd have to pay for it. PC wins on so many fronts.

If a developer releases a game on the PC and it's successful, they can release an expansion pack. You don't really see many expansion packs for console games, so is paid for DLC not a good way for developers to extend the life of a console release where an expansion pack might not work?

Thats a good point regarding PC expansion packs.

I happily bought Firestorm for C&C2, YR for RA2, etc etc. They were released relatively cheap. Usually introduced a new faction as well as new units/structures for existing teams, had shiny new FMVs, a bunch of new missions and maybe even a new online mode.

Thats value for money and that what I think DLC should be aimed at achieving.

I am yet to play Siren but really want to after finally finishing SH2 this year. Just mulling over whether or not to buy it in disc form or download cos it seems cheaper to buy on disc in some places.

johnny_ultimate

Agree with most here. A lot of DLC is basically taking the piss: things like extra costumes (Dead Space), extra levels mere days after release (Beautiful Katamari was meant to be particularly bad for this), horse armour, paying for cheats / in-game currency - these are the things that should be on the disc as unlockables, not 'premium content' for those wealthy enough to afford them. These are the things people should stop buying: cynical content that by all extents and purchases isn't worth paying for and should have been there in the first place as the bonuses that were included on the disc / cartridge / whatever in the days before internet distribution.

And then there is the well handled DLC, the stuff that actually improves the overall experience of the game. Rock Band series in particular has a wonderful DLC package: you can pick and choose from hundred of songs in order to add extra longevity to the game, and craft an in-game setlist that appeals to your taste. It may be an expensive game overall, but the sheer amount of quality content available for it makes the new downloadable stuff a very pleasant idea. The game is constantly evolving, and it means the on-disc setlist can change when you want it to (and it isn't like Harmonix are holding out stuff for DLC either - RB2 features shedloads of songs on the disc). And decent expansion packs are welcome DLC too: well designed map packs (yes, they were once free, but packs like the CoD4 one added extra mileage to a game I had already played in some depth. Although on the other hand very quick maps - like GoW2 ones released only a month or two after release - seem a bit cheeky), extended single player quests (Oblivion - after some of the joke DLC that they started off with - and Fallout 3 are good in this regard) and so on. Things that truly expand upon the core game - these are where DLC comes into its own. Stuff like extra characters (Mega Man 9, I'm looking for you)? That's just mean.

Still think publishers and developers are trying to figure out the whole downloadable content thing, and there is as much bad as there is good. But give it time, because whether you like it or not it is here to stay in the long run (hell, full games in retail boxes probably aren't long for this world anyway - Steam etc.. are already paving the way for fully downloadable games). And I can only imagine someday you will only get a basic game for a flat fee, and have to pay for any extra features you desire such as levels, weapons, or even an avatar (just getting the gameworld for free ). But there is potential for good DLC - perhaps best exemplified by Rock Band at the moment.

Kernel

Sorry to inflict some thread necromancy, but lately downloadable content has been pissing me off. For one thing I look at Fallout3, great game and game engine but way too short. Now look at the amount of DLC and expansion packs which have flooded out for it. I can only conclude that much of it could have been included in the final release.

Empire: Total War. I buy the Elite Units pack, then discover the game is buggy as hell, and guess what? 12 new units are released costing about €3 or something. Wtf? If not for the trend of DLC I'm sure these would have been given free of charge. I hate DLC! :mad:

Overheal

Beta Culture

Ciaran500

Kernel wrote: »

For one thing I look at Fallout3, great game and game engine but way too short.

WHAT?!

I put 70hrs into Fallout 3 and didn't do or see everything in the game, I got more value from that game than nearly any other game I have bought before.

fitz0

Kernel wrote: »

Fallout3, great game and game engine but way too short.

Did you play the same game as the rest of us? I went back to my last save that I put at least 60 hours into several months ago, I went back to it this week and I'm still discovering new things! Just walking around the wasteland and suddenly theres a talking Super Mutant! You can't complain its too short when it has this sort of longevity.

As for PC expansions. I bought Spore (I know, I know) and barely a month later theres a whole expansion out for it? WTF, couldn't they have stuck all those extra arms and legs into the original, they were clearly almost ready. Maxis are the worst for that after the success of the Sims. They seem to have gotten into the expansion mentality.

Kernel

fitz0 wrote: »

Did you play the same game as the rest of us? I went back to my last save that I put at least 60 hours into several months ago, I went back to it this week and I'm still discovering new things! Just walking around the wasteland and suddenly theres a talking Super Mutant! You can't complain its too short when it has this sort of longevity.

As for PC expansions. I bought Spore (I know, I know) and barely a month later theres a whole expansion out for it? WTF, couldn't they have stuck all those extra arms and legs into the original, they were clearly almost ready. Maxis are the worst for that after the success of the Sims. They seem to have gotten into the expansion mentality.

Well, maybe I should go back to it, I missed loads, since I mainly concentrated on the main quest expecting to come across all the other stuff on the way. Feck it, I'll play it again!

As for Spore... major disappointment. Way too simple.

chamlis

Jaysus sticking to the main quest is only about half an hour