EA have finally pushed the post-launch DLC thing too far.

Helix

ive already said the game is turd, so no i dont think theyve done a great job at all. and adding the courses wouldnt have changed that. if dlc didnt exist, those courses wouldnt exist either, its not like they were developed and then someone said "actually hang on, lets fleece people for them". theres market there, and you can bet your bollock that they had additional staff on board for the project to work on the dlc. if there was no market, or means to deliver the courses, the 17 in the game would still be the only ones shipped, the difference being that people then wouldnt have the option of buying additional courses if they wanted them. to say that they were chopped off the game is just wrong imo

the issue here isnt developers making dlc, the issue is that people are buying it in such numbers that it's being seen as quite a lucrative market

ShadowHearth

Helix wrote: »

ive already said the game is turd, so no i dont think theyve done a great job at all. and adding the courses wouldnt have changed that. if dlc didnt exist, those courses wouldnt exist either, its not like they were developed and then someone said "actually hang on, lets fleece people for them". theres market there, and you can bet your bollock that they had additional staff on board for the project to work on the dlc. if there was no market, or means to deliver the courses, the 17 in the game would still be the only ones shipped, the difference being that people then wouldnt have the option of buying additional courses if they wanted them. to say that they were chopped off the game is just wrong imo

the issue here isnt developers making dlc, the issue is that people are buying it in such numbers that it's being seen as quite a lucrative market

Okay thos release dated dlcs take time. So why not to make them and just release game earlier so? I would be happy. People would be happy. I would not feel raped .

As much as ihave respect to you and you made a great review, which helped me buy a game, I just don't understand how forgiving you are to those developers who screw gamers for extra cash!

TrustedApple

To me DLC is waste of money why pay 10 euros for a extra LV when you can go out and buy a game for 10 euros

Eg I picked up just cause 2 for 2.50 euro on the IGN dload and was looking at the DLC 5 euro for a gun when you only paid 2.50 for the game ?

Also if your not happy buying FIFA which is the same game every year for 50 euros you will got what you paid for a 4 year old game with the players out there new teams and new kits

I like the wwe games when they had gm mode I used to buy it every year just for that now that they have removed that why will I pay 40 euro for the SE game every year with just new superstars ?

The only game I pay for DLC is rockband witch is a ea game but 1.49 a song you can't go wrong when a song costs you 1.29 on iTunes. But the people on boards will be giveing out why didn't they put all these songs on the disc but if your not happy paying for it don't go on about it

Eg football manger is the same game each year that's why I only get in the summer when I can pick it up for 10 euros

Magill

Helix wrote: »

ive already said the game is turd, so no i dont think theyve done a great job at all. and adding the courses wouldnt have changed that. if dlc didnt exist, those courses wouldnt exist either, its not like they were developed and then someone said "actually hang on, lets fleece people for them". theres market there, and you can bet your bollock that they had additional staff on board for the project to work on the dlc. if there was no market, or means to deliver the courses, the 17 in the game would still be the only ones shipped, the difference being that people then wouldnt have the option of buying additional courses if they wanted them. to say that they were chopped off the game is just wrong imo

the issue here isnt developers making dlc, the issue is that people are buying it in such numbers that it's being seen as quite a lucrative market

Im not agruing that there isnt a market for it.

Maybe they did hire additional staff to work on the DLC and the orginal course designers didnt help with the DLC ( I seriously doubt it), but even then the pricing is not justified. With 17 courses in the game.. WHY THE FVCK does it cost over 100e for 18 more !! Oh... and lets not forget that alot of these DLC courses had already been designed in previous version of TW, i'd be suprised if they didnt just port them over and update them with new textures.

Theres also a huge problem that if you don't own the DLC courses and your doing the career mode, when you skip past those DLC courses it negatively effects your ranking !!

I don't care what way you look at it, its disgusting.

Helix

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Okay thos release dated dlcs take time. So why not to make them and just release game earlier so? I would be happy. People would be happy. I would not feel raped .

why do you feel raped? reactionary much? you got a game with 17 courses, and youre whinging because theyres dlc available. am i right in saying you knew this all along and STILL bought the game?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

As much as ihave respect to you and you made a great review, which helped me buy a game, I just don't understand how forgiving you are to those developers who screw gamers for extra cash!

nobody is being screwed though, this is what youre not grasping. anyone who wants the additional courses can buy them, but nobody is forcing their hand

Magill wrote: »

Maybe they did hire additional staff to work on the DLC and the orginal course designers didnt help with the DLC ( I seriously doubt it), but even then the pricing is not justified. With 17 courses in the game.. WHY THE FVCK does it cost over 100e for 18 more

because the market has dictated that people have no problem paying that kind of money. are you obliged to buy them? nope. know how much dlc ive bought in my life? none. know why? coz i think its a waste of money. if you dont like it, dont buy it.

the way youre going on youd swear you couldnt live without the dlc courses or something

Magill wrote: »

Oh... and lets not forget that alot of these DLC courses had already been designed in previous version of TW, i'd be suprised if they didnt just port them over and update them with new textures.

thats very likely. had they just done that and put them into the new game would you be whinging then too?

ShadowHearth

Helix, it's works perfect in a teal world. If you don't want dlc don't buy it, but little by little dlc becomes a cut out part of the game for which you pay money. Every game tries to add more stuff. Not give you same amount and then charge extra if you want actuolly new stuff!

Helix

but tiger 12 did add new stuff

it added a load of new courses, a brand new career mode, the masters license etc

yeah the game was poor, but it wasnt because they left a load of stuff out. the dlc is, for the most part, old courses. had the courses on the game been the same as the last one, and the new courses were dlc then id side with you on it but it wasnt the case

Magill

Whatever you think of the actual game, it would have been a better game with all that DLC included in the actual game. Im not bloody stupid, i know you dont have to buy it but the fact is that adding this sort of content, which in no way justifies its cost, in the main game will make the game better which as you've already pointed out is something that wouldn't go a miss.

They should be pushing to make these games to the highest standard they can and if that is to include more content then so be it but you shouldn't have to pay through your teeth for it.

The only form of DLC that i approve of is expansion packs... i.e Developed post release ! Im not at all bothered by gimmicky cosmetic forms of DLC like costumes and such because they add nothing to the actual game and wont improve the game at all and only idiots or those that really love the game will buy it. But levels/tracks/courses/maps that have been developed along side the actual game and that are intergrated into the story/career mode.... you are losing out and the game is worse off without it, a game that is only in development for a year simply shouldnt have ANY of this kind of DLC ready at release... Its nothing but pure greed.... you being a gamer i would have thought you'd actual see that.

P.S I dont give a crap about tiger woods 12, its the knock on effect that this sort of bullsh!t business model will have on other developers and publishers that is worrying.

The way your going on you'd swear you were getting some back handers from all this money they're making.

keane2097

You're getting as much content as you have always gotten in this game.

The fact that extra content is available if you want it is a bonus that adds to the lifespan of the game for a couple of extra quid.

The fact that people feel they're somehow entitled to a ton of extra content for free is lol.

Magill

keane2097 wrote: »

You're getting as much content as you have always gotten in this game.

The fact that extra content is available if you want it is a bonus that adds to the lifespan of the game for a couple of extra quid.

The fact that people feel they're somehow entitled to a ton of extra content for free is lol.

The fact that you think that what they release with these sports games is good enough to warrant 60yoyo's is LOL !

If this was an elders scroll game or something that takes years to make maybe i'd feel slightly different. This is an EA Sports game, you can barely tell the difference from last years game ffs...

I dont buy their games because they're an absolute joke, this is just another slap in the face for those that are actually buying these games every year.

And dont be so ignorant, its hardly a few quid.

keane2097

Magill wrote: »

The fact that you think that what they release with these sports games is good enough to warrant 60yoyo's is LOL !

If this was an elders scroll game or something that takes years to make maybe i'd feel slightly different. This is an EA Sports game, you can barely tell the difference from last years game ffs...

I dont buy their games because they're an absolute joke, this is just another slap in the face for those that are actually buying these games every year.

And dont be so ignorant, its hardly a few quid.

What do you mean "warrant"? Most of EA's sports franchise games are consistently excellent, and the market very, very clearly shows that the prices they charge for them are completely justified.

It's what, four euro for an extra golf course? Doesn't exactly seem like crazy money to me.

PogMoThoin

keane2097 wrote: »

What do you mean "warrant"? Most of EA's sports franchise games are consistently excellent, and the market very, very clearly shows that the prices they charge for them are completely justified.

It's what, four euro for an extra golf course? Doesn't exactly seem like crazy money to me.

But these aren't new games, they're games released year in year out with a few new features every time. The DLC golf courses are re-skins of courses provided in earlier editions, not new work. The gaming market has changed because sheep like you just accept shít like this

animaal

I think a lot of this is about the change in the implied contract between gamer and developer.

In the old days, a developer released a game. The implied promise was that the game was as good as the developer could make it. If the game had bugs, the gamers would be very unimpressed, and raise a stink. If the storyline felt unfinished, the gamers would raise a stink.

So when you buy a game and the DLC is immediately linked from the main menu, you feel cheated because you obviously haven't gotten the developer's best efforts. Or if DLC completes a storyline within the overall plot, you feel cheated because what comes on the disk no longer feels like a complete storyline.

What's changing now is that the developers are being up-front about the fact that when you buy a game, you're no longer receiving the developer's best efforts. You're receiving as little content as can be distributed without reducing overall profitability. It's far more calculated and clinical than it used to be.

What's the end-game? I used to think it'd be subscription-based gaming. I don't think so any more. If people are willing to shell out e60 for each year's FIFA/Madden/whatever, why would EA change to distribution of (presumably cheaper) subscribed content updates instead?

I can see gaming going farther down this route. E.g. buy Tiger Woods 2016, and you get the game engine, and nine courses. But they'll be bigger and better. Or HD. Or something. Online pass no longer comes in the box - it costs extra. After all, servers cost money. Better clubs are also DLC. Good luck playing online without them. There'll be online tournaments, but there'll be an entry fee. Maybe the ability to pay for a better caddy.

I wonder if we'll see charges for bugfixes? I'm sure there'll be forums full of people saying that there's no reason to be unhappy about that. It costs money to fix bugs.

But there'll still be games like Gran Turismo and Fallout that strive to give you as much as they can. Like the baker says, it's a matter of pride.

ShadowHearth

Animaal you nailed it. That pretty much 100% I was on about.

Developers used to impress customers, give as much as they can, make good quality game!

These days developers look in to stuff they cam cut off and sell as for extra!

calex71

AH look I liken this whole thing to the more advanced the tech gets the better they get at squeezing us for money.

Look at the trusty mobile phone, 1st they used ring tones to get our cash, .... fast forward to today now they have the app store.

You don't have to like it, and you especially don't have to buy into it. However unlike the mobile phone model you don't have free alternatives to dlc

gizmo

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Fighting Games in general have always been known for releasing many iterations, but they're really jumping on the DLC bandwagon. Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 came with 2 characters on the disc which were released as DLC later on. More DLC to come there too. It's going to make tournaments a bloody nightmare now, with some people having certain DLC characters on their team.

Those characters were shown to be in an unfinished state though.

animaal wrote: »

What's changing now is that the developers are being up-front about the fact that when you buy a game, you're no longer receiving the developer's best efforts. You're receiving as little content as can be distributed without reducing overall profitability. It's far more calculated and clinical than it used to be.

On overly cynical and entirely untrue summary if ever I saw one.

People need to realise (or at least remember) that the games they're playing at the moment cost millions to develop. Even that EA Sports game that you claim has changed so little still costs millions to develop every year. Therefore when it comes to budgeting for a title, a line needs to be drawn under the content that can be included in the time frame set out to produce the game. In the past when additional content or features were suggested one of two things happened, either the release date was pushed back in order to facilitate their inclusion or the request for said content or features was turned down. Nowadays there is a third alternative, DLC. This allows developers/publishers to allocate additional resources to new content knowing that it will be paid for via revenue outside of the main game sales. Said resources could be additional time for the current development team or more staff brought on to work on it specifically.

The vast majority of non-trivial DLC out there falls into this category these days. There are exceptions of course (horse armour springs to mind) but in the context of the current discussion, namely Tiger Woods 12, the additional courses most certainly fall into the above category.

Outkast_IRE

any one else here waiting for a mass effect 2 DLC pack , rather than buying all these little ad ons seperate .
I long for the days of the original half life addons where it was like getting a whole new game for half the price:D

animaal

gizmo wrote: »

On overly cynical and entirely untrue summary if ever I saw one.

I'm guessing what you've seen doesn't include much corporate strategy.

Ok,let's flip it on its head. As an organisation, EA is responsible to its shareholders. Its primary purpose is to maximise the return for those shareholders. How impressed would you be as a shareholder if EA's CEO said to you "We could be making more money for you, but gee, it's all about the games".

Any programmer in EA is probably enthusiastic about games, and wants to deliver the best gaming experience ever. Great. And that's good for EA too. However, the employer sets the timelines, the budgets, decides on marketing, pricing, and what quality is needed before shouting "ship it!". Business is business. It's the same whether you're selling games, word processors or iPhone fart apps.

It's nothing to do with cynicism. It's about knowing how large organisations work. A CEO is unlikely to be a passionate gamer. He reports to the board, the members of which are also unlikely to be gamers. When they meet, they don't talk about how cool the games' sound effects are. They talk about revenues and market share, now and projected forward. Predictability is invaluable. These are the drivers for the CEO, who directs downwards to the layers of management. EA is very similar to any other large commercial organisation in this regard. It's not like the old days, when games companies were smaller and working in a less predictable environment, didn't have annual increments to their games with years of sales figures on which to provide a basis for next year's projections.

EA cares about games in the same way that Burger King cares about food. Sorry if I'm ruining the mystique.

gizmo

animaal wrote: »

I'm guessing what you've seen doesn't include much corporate strategy.

Ok,let's flip it on its head. As an organisation, EA is responsible to its shareholders. Its primary purpose is to maximise the return for those shareholders. How impressed would you be as a shareholder if EA's CEO said to you "We could be making more money for you, but gee, it's all about the games".

Any programmer in EA is probably enthusiastic about games, and wants to deliver the best gaming experience ever. Great. And that's good for EA too. However, the employer sets the timelines, the budgets, decides on marketing, pricing, and what quality is needed before shouting "ship it!". Business is business. It's the same whether you're selling games, word processors or iPhone fart apps.

It's nothing to do with cynicism. It's about knowing how large organisations work. A CEO is unlikely to be a passionate gamer. He reports to the board, the members of which are also unlikely to be gamers. When they meet, they don't talk about how cool the games' sound effects are. They talk about revenues and market share, now and projected forward. Predictability is invaluable. These are the drivers for the CEO, who directs downwards to the layers of management. EA is very similar to any other large commercial organisation in this regard. It's not like the old days, when games companies were smaller and working in a less predictable environment, didn't have annual increments to their games with years of sales figures on which to provide a basis for next year's projections.

EA cares about games in the same way that Burger King cares about food. Sorry if I'm ruining the mystique.

Nope, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with your appraisal that what people are getting aren't developers best efforts. I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post either, but what you missed was how this links in with the DLC that's being debated.

Varik

Kirby wrote: »

Any DLC that comes from week one is held back to screw the customer and to try and get them to pay for something that was made months ago.

A lot of the time i'd think that this firsts week dlc is either held back (£,$,€)or was content that the developer felt was weak and time was an issue for the release date.

If the content was started during the main games development but not finished then that means that it was probably left on the cutting room floor for a reason.

animaal

gizmo wrote: »

Nope, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with your appraisal that what people are getting aren't developers best efforts. I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post either, but what you missed was how this links in with the DLC that's being debated.

Some of the DLC courses were ported from previous titles. The additional cost to include them on the disk, while non-zero, would be relatively very small. The decision to charge for these wasn't due to lack of time or funds on EA's part. I'd describe that as less than best efforts.

Greyed out courses in the main course list. This is a basic psychological technique. Encourage purchases by continually reminding people of what they haven't got. At its simplest, this is an attempt to plant dissatisfaction in gullible minds, rather than waiting for them to consume all available content and seek more under an "EA Store" submenu. Even if it only produces a tiny number of additional sales, it's a success.

This is probably all good from the shareholder's perspective. But there's no good pretending that the shareholders' interests are the same as the consumers'. EA isn't evil; they adapt to what the market will take. That's what they've done up to now. The only way we can shape the direction things take is to be aware, and to vote with our wallets.

gizmo

animaal wrote: »

Some of the DLC courses were ported from previous titles. The additional cost to include them on the disk, while non-zero, would be relatively very small. The decision to charge for these wasn't due to lack of time or funds on EA's part. I'd describe that as less than best efforts.

Not really, it depends on the improvements to the engine really. Best case scenario, the geometric data for the courses between the engines was the same so all that would need to be done was a designer to go in and replace the textures and other objects in game with the upgraded ones. Worse case, and more likely, the course would have to be redesigned from scratch based for use in the new engine.

As a side note, I don't really equate not including content from previous games in current iterations as being mean. If you want to play the older courses then play the older game, if you want to play the older courses in your new game then go and pay for them.

animaal wrote: »

Greyed out courses in the main course list. This is a basic psychological technique. Encourage purchases by continually reminding people of what they haven't got. At its simplest, this is an attempt to plant dissatisfaction in gullible minds, rather than waiting for them to consume all available content and seek more under an "EA Store" submenu. Even if it only produces a tiny number of additional sales, it's a success.

A basic psychological technique perhaps. It also happens to make most sense when designing your UI to accommodate for additional items which will be included later and which can be turned on and off with a simple code switch depending on whether the game finds said DLC present on the console.

animaal wrote: »

This is probably all good from the shareholder's perspective. But there's no good pretending that the shareholders' interests are the same as the consumers'. EA isn't evil; they adapt to what the market will take. That's what they've done up to now. The only way we can shape the direction things take is to be aware, and to vote with our wallets.

But people are voting with their wallets and they've decided that they like it. Of course that doesn't necessarily make them right (I'm looking at you CoD map packs) but as I said before, I have not played a game where I was unhappy with the content provided and only would have been happy had content made available via DLC been included in it at retail. Ask yourself that same question, note the outcome and then tell me what that indicates to you.

Or to use a more practical example, is it fair to call Bioware/EA rip off merchants with respect to the Dragon Age DLC even though the game as it is offered over 40 hours of gameplay?

D4RK ONION

gizmo wrote: »

Those characters were shown to be in an unfinished state though.

Yeah, that was the original thought, turns out Shuma was completely finished and Jill was almost totally complete. Pretty sure her finishes were patched through, as the DL keys are just unlock codes.

Anywho, I personally don't find it acceptable. Like I said, it's a total pain for the tournament community.

gizmo

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Yeah, that was the original thought, turns out Shuma was completely finished and Jill was almost totally complete. Pretty sure her finishes were patched through, as the DL keys are just unlock codes.

Anywho, I personally don't find it acceptable. Like I said, it's a total pain for the tournament community.

Completely agree on the tournament disruption alright, can't imagine it will do anything other than cause a massive pain in the ass.

v3ttel

DLC should be DOWNLOADABLE content. I've no problem with DLC being used in the true sense. The developers release a game which is as good as they can possibly make it at the time of launch.

If after the release date, they want to make extra content to prolong the life of the game for a reasonable price, brilliant. They deserve to be rewarded for spending the extra time, post release, to enhance a gamers experience. Absolutely.

If however, they start to take the p!ss, holding back a certain % of content on the disc, that is completely against the spirit of DLC. If it has already been completed in the development life-cycle of the game, it should be provided as standard, rather than holding content back and trying to milk more money.