DLC vs. Expansion

Scavenger XIII

The sad thing is we're stuck being shafted like this forevermore as long as there are millions of gullible idiots out there buying into this crap en masse.

They're the ones to blame, absurd DLC and P2W practices are basically free money for a developer/publisher.

Who doesn't like free money?

kunst nugget

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'm from the age of real expansions and definitely hate the move to DLC. Soon pc games are going to be like mobile gaming..... I have aquaintances that have spent literally thousands on Clash of Clans. Makes me cringe.

Personally I blame the world economy.. Stuff like DLC, The X Factor and The Hunger Games movies are all the result of tweenagers with disposable income.

I'm not really sure what the connection really is between those 3 things beyond them being successful but you're blaming the world economy for people having disposable income? Also I'd wager the majority of DLC are bought by men children and not tweenagers.

Canis Lupus

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not really sure what the connection really is between those 3 things beyond them being successful but you're blaming the world economy for people having disposable income? Also I'd wager the majority of DLC are bought by men children and not tweenagers.

My point being they're all shyte and only young kids with lots of disposable income are willing to throw money at these things. However that's just an opinion. I've no demographics on people who use DLC.

gizmo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

My point being they're all shyte and only young kids with lots of disposable income are willing to throw money at these things. However that's just an opinion. I've no demographics on people who use DLC.

The Hunger Games is ****e? Sure, it's no Battle Royale but with the first installments sitting at 84 and 89% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively, I think you may be a little bit off base on that one.

As for DLC, there's good content and there's bad content, labeling it all in the same manner is equally incorrect.

kunst nugget

Canis Lupus wrote: »

My point being they're all shyte and only young kids with lots of disposable income are willing to throw money at these things. However that's just an opinion. I've no demographics on people who use DLC.

I liked the Hunger Games movies for what they are - an enjoyable way to pass a lazy afternoon.

I'll be honest, considering the age of a tween is around 10-12, I could see some of them maybe getting their parents buying some DLC for them - not many tweens I know with a Debit or Credit Card - for the likes of Fifa or maybe Call of Duty but I can't really see the DLC for the likes of Mass Effect, Bioshock or games like that being appealing to that age bracket.

Canis Lupus

gizmo wrote: »

The Hunger Games is ****e? Sure, it's no Battle Royale but with the first installments sitting at 84 and 89% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively, I think you may be a little bit off base on that one.

As for DLC, there's good content and there's bad content, labeling it all in the same manner is equally incorrect.

It's up there with Twilight, I don't care what RT says. :P

Generic Dreadhead

So...... kid around the ages of 10-13 having an interest in TV, Books, Music or Games is something new?

kunst nugget

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It's up there with Twilight, I don't care what RT says. :P

Having endured both, The Hunger Games is like Citizen Kane, The Godfather and Apocalypse Now rolled into one compared to that Twilight shíte.

kunst nugget

Cormac... wrote: »

So...... kid around the ages of 10-13 having an interest in TV, Books, Music or Games is something new?

They're causing the downfall of society.

Canis Lupus

kunst nugget wrote: »

I liked the Hunger Games movies for what they are - an enjoyable way to pass a lazy afternoon.

I'll be honest, considering the age of a tween is around 10-12, I could see some of them maybe getting their parents buying some DLC for them - not many tweens I know with a Debit or Credit Card - for the likes of Fifa or maybe Call of Duty but I can't really see the DLC for the likes of Mass Effect, Bioshock or games like that being appealing to that age bracket.

I work in card fraud. Transactions are routed through mommy and daddies cards although to be fair I use the term tweenager as an insult rather than a very specific age group. Young teenagers with more money than sense basically and for what it's worth, without casting any dispersions on my family my nephew was playing one of the CoDs and was around 11 (I'm a bad uncle, I don't keep track of their ages, he might even have been younger)

K.O.Kiki

This has now turned into a "Grumpy Old Men" thread.

Outkast_IRE

To me there is a distinction between DLC and an expansion. If a company has day 1 DLC then there is no way in hell i would pay extra for it, it basically means they held it back from the game.

However for games like Total war, where although there is some dlc, there is also some substantial campaigns often sold for a few euro , then that is acceptable to me.

I dont think i have ever bought DLC from EA as they are killing gaming with the ridiculous amounts of customisation and upgrades and point packs........

Like everything else some companies do it well, others just milk it for all its worth.

C14N

gizmo wrote: »

Generally speaking, a lot of this isn't correct, C14N. The kind of DLC that costs €10-15 is, more often than not, not the kind of DLC that costs almost nothing to make. Lower priced, more straight forward reskins could be argued to offer a fairly substantial return given the amount it'll sell relative to its cost to produce but once it gets more complex than that, you'll have multiple team members working on it, whether it's directly or indirectly, at various points throughout development. Even then, all content has a cost associated with it simply because you're paying staff to make it that would otherwise have been working on something profitable or simply not employed at all.

I'm thinking stuff like map packs and extra weapons DLC here. There is no way 3 more levels in COD costs a substantial amount of money to make, but they do sell it for a substantial cost. Things like the DLC for Bioshock Infinite or the Last of Us are more substantial, but they still get to re-use the engine and mechanics from the base game, as well as many assets.

Regarding the cost, (source is Extra Credits although I can't recall the episode), previously there was often a down period between games. For a short while between games, the leads would have to work together to draw out a plan for the next game and most of the team had little to do but still had to be paid. DLC basically gave them something to do in this period so it doesn't end up costing the studio that much extra.

gizmo wrote: »

As for the developer or publisher take from DLC, well given the fact that it's sold digitally, in the majority of cases there will be a middle man involved. If you sell on the consoles, the platform holder gets a cut and if you're selling on the PC via Steam then Valve will get a cut.

Okay, I shouldn't say no middleman but generally less of one. The console makers or Valve get a cut on retail sales too, they aren't filling in where the normal retailers miss out.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

To me there is a distinction between DLC and an expansion. If a company has day 1 DLC then there is no way in hell i would pay extra for it, it basically means they held it back from the game.

I never understand people getting bothered by this. Pretty much all DLC is held back from the game, regardless of when they release it. It's not something where they said "hey, now that the game is done, lets think of things to add to it!". They decide at the start what goes in the game and what gets saved for DLC. It's just that sometimes they get the DLC done in time for release day.

Outkast_IRE

C14N wrote: »

I never understand people getting bothered by this. Pretty much all DLC is held back from the game, regardless of when they release it. It's not something where they said "hey, now that the game is done, lets think of things to add to it!". They decide at the start what goes in the game and what gets saved for DLC. It's just that sometimes they get the DLC done in time for release day.

No to be fair not all DLC is held back from the game, as i said some of the DLC for total war is quite significant in terms of content & obvious enough that they needed to pay a team to develop and test it. That is not content held back it is often is released 12 months after the original has been released and some sites follow the development of it by meeting with the team for interviews etc .

I will never forget the first dragon age game, and after an hour or so of play you meet someone by a campfire who tells you about a quest........... a quest that you then find out was DLC you had to buy on the first day of release, that is a different story and unforgiveable, it ruined the immersion immediately

Generic Dreadhead

Lies.... nobody works in testing for Creative Assembly

Outkast_IRE

Cormac... wrote: »

Lies.... nobody works in testing for Creative Assembly

Surely you mean nobody works in testing pre-launch. Then most are testing and bug fixing for 12 months or so

Generic Dreadhead

Ok.... maybe 1 guy.... who is blind.... And plays as Date