|
Some people are getting uppity about DLC being developed during the
development period of the main game. As reported here Fake-on-disc-DLC is simply unacceptable
On a very tiny level you can see their point. If it was made during
the development of the main game, and especially if it ends up on the
release disc but locked, then it should be available for people to play
as soon as they get the disc.
Erm…no. That’s completely wrong.
You’re not paying for the disc!!! You’re paying for the time and
effort that was put into making the extra content that makes up the DLC.
Money, time and resources have been put to the side to develop the DLC
separate from the main game. It doesn’t matter when it gets developed.
The DLC content costed extra. You’re going to have to pay for that extra
content.
Let’s combat particular points in the argument: -
Bioshock 2 had DLC that was on the retail disc that is unlocked.
So? Aren’t you happy about that? Now you don’t have to worry about the
huge download size. It’s still new content that is separate from the
main game and that extra work needs to be compensated for. Bioshock 2 is
no less of a game without the DLC. You still got dozens of hours of
content for your money. You’d have to be pretty bloody ungrateful to
demand more for nothing.
Tomb Raider Underworld had DLC content that was levels that
weren’t completed on time. Yes, and they had to be cut out because
the resources weren’t available to make them. It happens on pretty much
every game except Duke Nukem Forever. They’ll have been working bloody
hard just to get what they could finished on time. The incomplete
levels were later completed with extra time and effort. Extra time and
effort that has to be compensated for.
Some DLC is just cheap shit made for a quick buck. That’s a
different argument. You don’t have to buy that stupid little hat for
your character. But some people do. So someone will be paid to make it.
Most of the money doesn’t go to the developers anyway. Yes,
but some of it has to. No sales, no future work, no jobs. The balance
between what developers, publishers and retailers take on are a
different argument. But what you should know is that if there is DLC
going to made, then a publisher will have to pay the developer more to
make it.
But what is made during main development should stay in the main
game? It doesn’t matter when the extra content is made. It’s still
extra content. The main game isn’t having anything taken away from it.
Say the game demanded 100 developers and 2 years to make. The DLC
demanded 20 more developers and 6 months. They aren’t taking away 20
developers away from the main game for 6 months. That would screw over
the game. The resources for the DLC are additional. They’re extra.
Everyone wants something for nothing. That’s why complainers about
DLC are trying to pull a fast one. But when it boils down to it you’re
paying for something that talented, hard-working people have slogged
their guts out to deliver to you. If you don’t pay for it then those
talented, hard-working people won’t have any work to slog over.
|
I'm sure it has happened like that before. It's too tempting for a publisher to have all these potential bits of content that could be sold separately, which equals out to a lot more profit per asset/line of code or however else you want create a metric for it.
So the solution? Don't include DLC on the disk. At least make it appear it took some time to create. Make it appear as if you had no plans for DLC, until it's actually released, as a download. By including it on the disk you're just inviting criticism.
"We hope you've enjoyed reading about John's South American journey. If you want to know what happenned to John in chapters 18 and 19 while he travelled through Ecuador and Peru, then send us $10 and we'll mail you the remaining chapters!"
What is your reaction, as a book reader, to this? You probably feel completely ripped off, and rightfully so. There was no good reason for the publisher not to have given you chapters 18 and 19 - it was part of the story you bought. If I buy the book about John Smith's travels through South America, and there are 25 chapters in that story, then the book should include all 25 chapters. When you buy a book you aren't just buying the paper and ink, you're also buying the *story*, and if the book doesn't contain some of that story that you've purchased, then the publisher is cheating you.
Similarly, when you buy a game you're not just buying a disc or whatever fragments of code the publisher feels like giving you that day, you're buying a *game*, and if the publisher is deliberately not giving you part of the game that you've bought then they're cheating you.
The point is this: what is or is not technically illegal - who owns what and precisely how much of it they own - is irrelevant. If you are deliberately only providing some of the content you have produced so that you can get more money later then you (and by "you" I mean whoever is publishing the game) are treating your customers like dirt. Yes, you're perfectly entitled to do so, but being allowed to do something doesn't mean you're any less of a jerk for having done it.
Of course, that would annoy people even more. This is a sneaky way of doing the same thing.
And you're also missing some shared resources going to DLC production, which are paid by the regular customers. For example those kind of DLC makes use of disc production, QA, and probably management time of the main content, which would cost extra if developed separately.
DLC will always be released for big budget titles, and usually the game will be good enough to merit the purchase of these titles regardless of the extra time it takes for them to be released. What i foresee happening is if these titles that have all this (extra) content are ready to go at the release date then totally fail to generate sales, all that effort (time, money) to make content will just be pissed up the wall.
The financing should already have considered "no of staff * time of completion = cost". Those 20 people probably aren't worth the small amount of time they'll save. It will be balanced out until they think they're getting bang for buck.
The DLC team (for a new level, for example) will probably have a different balance of staff too, weighing heavier on level designers because they'll be coding on top of the main code using some original assets. All these designers are going to be good for are making more levels. Levels you're not budgeted for in the main game.
The same with new art content like costumes. All they'll be good for is making new art assets. You can't give a model to 2 artists to get it done faster if it was just one artist. If anything, things will be worse.
@all-of-you Yes, it is prone to abuse. It certainly has been abused in the past. It's no wonder people are concerned when they see DLC already on the disc.
Still, bad DLC is a different issue than the timing of DLC. I think publishers are doing a better job now of managing DLC and knowing what they can get away with and what they can't. Gamers are savvy enough to see that a whole country in the south american journey has been cut out but is still referenced to.
DLC is part of a release strategy now. They'll plan the DLC in advance so they can release it at the optimum time. If it takes 6 months to do a new level, it would be a really bad idea to start it as soon as the main game is out of the door, because in 6 months time that game will have been traded in for something new.
I think on-disc DLC has more to do with release strategy that publishers trying to screw you over (sometimes it's for technical reasons too). Think of all the games that were delayed this xmas to avoid being destroyed by Modern Warfare 2. Think how long DLC takes to make.
They probably thought they were doing you a favour. Now publishers are just going to make sure the DLC is downloadable in the future for PR reasons ...but nothing will have changed.
Hope your internet doesn't have bandwidth limits.
I fail to see the analogy of buying a book with the middle chapters missing. If a game pulled that stunt, this would be reflected in the reviews and review scores. You could choose not to buy the game. Sure maybe you don't read the reviews, but then you really don't know what you're getting. If you're that kind of person, you're likely to buy a bad game anyway (with a story just as likely to be unfinished), locked content or no.
I'll remember that in mid-cycle of The Force Unleashed 2.
We'll cut out some levels, dual-wielding lightsabers (Form 6 for you Star Wars buffs), and some stormtroopers. Oh, and better yet, we'll make you pay for Force Lightning.
:)
I would rather see games with less content and more polish / core gameplay strength. The only games I've ever played for more than the week it might take me to go through them are ones with really solid and fun gameplay.
In the end gamers just want good games. DLC IMO should be an after thought. If DLC is being made during development your not getting what you paid. Furthermore, the cost of that DLC is riding on the backs of all gamers who purchased the game making it cheaper for those who wish to purchase it and that's wrong. If you want to make it fair keep the profit models separate and don't subsidize any of the game's DLC development costs by ramping up the price of the game. DLC is separate and should be priced accordingly.
If that makes DLC more expensive so be it.
I think the problem with your argument is that you make the assumption that certain things "should" be included.
In fact, it's up to the developer and publisher to decide what should be included in their product. If they decide that force lightning shouldn't be included, then that's their decision.
Of course, that may be a bad decision in terms of sales. A forced unleashed game that retails for $50 that doesn't include lightsabers, for instance, will probably get bad reviews. This will lead to lost sales.
So it all comes down to what quality the developer/publisher wants for his game. If he chooses to cut out significant pieces and save them for later, the game's quality will go down, leading to fewer people buying the game. Maybe he can make that money back on DLC and maybe not. It's a balancing act.
My point of contention, and a flaw in the argument here, is that it comes out to be only an extra dollar per game sold, which seems negligible compared to the MSRP ($1 /$60 = 1.5%). This seems especially true if the content is already on the disc, since you're not even talking about bandwidth costs then.
On the other hand, if a huge number of people by the DLC, then the extra profit created makes more sense since it would not be such a small percentage of the overall gross.
Anybody have any numbers?
Having positive attitude about the practice will make it happen. Don't put blinders on about teh long term consequences of trying to excuse it.
I'm not aware of the current practice, but I wouldn't be surprised if reviewers copies of the game have all DLC unlocked, for "complete review concern". With careful design, the DLC boundaries can be made blurry, so that reviewer won't necessarily know or bother to find out the DLC limits. Think extra cars and tracks in racing games, extra weapons, extra story arc or side quests. So we can't reliably expect reviews to accurately depict the situation in their scores.
1. Expectations, if the player knows in advance that there'll be lots of DLC and an indication of what that DLC is, then its a bitter pill that can at least be swallowed, it's when it's a surprise that I find it a problem, like the realisation that I bought a disc but some of the content was locked away until I paid extra - Something been hidden from me and I don't like that.
2. It constitutes a potential distraction in the development of the core game, designers who could be making the core game the best it could be might end up having to juggle extra balls or have to rebalance the game because a piece of content thats been balanced for has been up/downgraded to DLC status.
By all means, monetise the big releases where there is demand for extra content and charge for it if you must, but do so in a way that players won't feel is dishonest nor upset the development of the core game.
I've seen reviewer commentary on how Shale is the most interesting/fun character in Dragon Age: Origins, but many if not all reviewers couldn't access him because it was DLC content that wasn't available to the reviewer which is a shame and may have ultimately impacted on the review scores for the main game, a metric I'm sure most publishers care about a great deal.
I agree with Jeremy above that this is really a step around the MSRP. Basically you are charging more for the full purchase.
If I actually have to download DLC separate, the question of ownership gets tossed out the window as I did not already buy that content. I can complain about how it should have been included in the original game, but the fact is it wasn't and I don't have any claim of ownership to it.
I think that publishers and some developers (I believe this is mostly a publisher decision) seem to be detached from the mind of the consumer. They have not put themselves into the shoes of the average consumer in so long they have completely forgotten what they expect.
It's just like when people complain about MMO subscriptions when the developer is spending massive amounts of money maintaining and upgrading the MMO. Game budgets are growing a lot faster than game prices, and developers need a way to make up for that.
Now, all that being said, there's still such a thing as bad DLC. If the story is clearly incomplete or has gaping holes that need filled with DLC, then yes, I strongly object to that. On the other hand, if there are some cool side quests, multiplayer maps, or game modes that didn't fit into the original budget and/or schedule, I think it's awesome to see those available, and I don't think that the dev/publisher has any moral obligation to give them to me.
(1) The Apogee model: Play for free, buy for complete experience.
(2) LIVE model: Release title, require cert. for title and content updates. (Locked content not required.)
(3) Locked content included in initial retail release.
Point 1: The Apogee model was essentially giving you the complete game, restricting access to later levels, for free and charging for a complete experience.
Point 2: The LIVE model requires a submitted product to be updated, pretty requiring a modifiable final product.
Point 3: The customer, end-user is always right as they dictate purchases and therefore, sales.
I think I've touched on this somewhere else, but to reiterate: There is a perceived flaw in locking content in final product releases by the consumer.
What are the specifics?
(1) Incomplete experience in the title either through locked content or incomplete development in available content.
(2) Price increase per unit masked by locking content.
(3) Dissatisfaction to the consumer.
Conclusions
The Apogee model basically was demo our title, pay if you want to play. Locked content on disk is being interpreted as, "Pay $60 dollars for our demo, an additional $5-$15 dollars to play." Please note that this is the consumer perception, and I think it's quite valid because they are the consumer. Just saying, "Buy this. Trust us. It's not a scam, you will get a complete experience even without the locked content. All warranties void..." is just too much to ask of the consumer.
Finally, DLC where the 'D' stands for download as opposed to locked content , need to be kept clearly distinct in this case due to the fact that the perception to DLC is ADDED CONTENT and not LOCKED CONTENT. This distinction has to be kept clear even in a development environment as DLC offers more controls to title development where the goal is title retention to increase unit sales within the initial title release window versus locked content. DLC benefits the initial release sales and consumer retention of the title, possibly reducing distributor buy back programs where neither the publisher or developer receive any benefits from the resale.
I also don't buy real DLC that is made after a game is released. When I spend my initial 60+ bucks thats all I'm willing to spend on the product. if I don't get a full experience out of it at that price I probably will skip on any further games in the series.
Objectively, what is the difference between Pinnacle Station and Bring Down the Sky compared to the other side-quests and side-stories of Mass Effect? Or a set of maps for Gears of War? Or older examples, expansion packs and such.
While, yes, it is wrong to say that people should not get charged extra for something, I find it difficult to draw a line in context of a game. Is a complete game something that equals 50 bucks of entertainment value? 2 man-years of work? Do these metrics even mean anything? After all, we've all played games that we've felt were worth or not worth the money we paid, yet both cost the same. And the same game can provoke a difference response from person to person - beyond any context of moral right and wrong, one person may like a game more and invest more in it. A person who buys not just the Core Rules of D&D but campaign settings and additional monsters.
Which isn't to say that there isn't a line, I don't think. After all, as Mr. Bishop said, if a game is missing levels 3 and 4 out of a 9 level game, that's absolutely an incomplete game. I'm just not sure we can say what's right or wrong until we figure out a better definition of what we're talking about.
Question: Would DLC prevent you from buying a title...say if the DLC released when the title was or after?
Would content locked on purchase prevent you from purchasing a title?
@Stephen Chin
As a consumer...
It's kind of a moot point to ask that question as there are plenty of 'complete' titles already on the market that are selling well, at the price point which is generating large revenues. To add variability to content as well as add the additional complexity of determining what gives the most user 'experience' with locked content can only have a negative impact on sales as there are plenty of titles that do not reach the marketplace with such a function. Just look at the lack of dedicated servers on COD:MOD2. Sales were through the roof as the product was targeted to the largest demographic of consumers and not the JUST the 'core' community...which while sizable is still a market segment.
As a Producer...
Why wasn't this assessed in pre-production? We know that limiting access to purchased content has a negative effect on street release sales (first two months of release) as well as increasing distributor buy back options--which I would like to point out neither the publisher or developer receives any royalties on.
A completed game to both the publisher and developer is a contractual agreement to deliver a title by agreed upon specifications set to design documentation. These core features and how they are implemented can be shifted or cut, period. Added features, if there is time, shows a lack of preparation just as much as cut features or functionality and can impact delivery date. Both publisher and developer need to maintain this awareness and focus, negotiating key trade offs that impact the project bottom line to the final product. Anything less than perfection, which includes a satisfied consumer, is unacceptable...my ego wouldn't stand for it.
Final Note:
This has been an interesting question. There are a lot of creative people that are more publisher/industry focused than consumer-side, which means a shift happened where the industry became more provider focused rather than consumer. This is something I've experienced in other industries from Microsoft to the automotive industry: The concept that the product made is the product the consumer will buy. Very strange, I would of thought I'd notice something like that...
That is the line. That is what the publisher has gambled, yes gambled, will be the correct amount to produce the quality that will return enough sales to at least cover their bet. That is your $60.
I don't agree with this but lets say ...if level 3 gets ripped out and turned into DLC the publisher has changed his bet. The publisher is within their rights to do so. Their money. Their gamble. The quality of the initial $60 game will drop.
Worst case for the publisher is that there will be less sales. At the moment DLC sales are tiny compared to the box product so it's highly unlikely they would recoup that money.
Best case for the publisher is that they make just as many sales as if they kept the level in. This is the evil we're all against? Actually, it just says that they bet wrong in the first place. This is a bad thing for them.
Development of a game needs different people at different times. At the start of the project it's all about new art and framework code. In the middle it's more about the designers and even more art content. At the end it's about fixing everything so it's more programmers and a few designers.
If level 3 gets ripped out you're not utilising staff well. Say you need 10 designers to make 5 levels. 2 of those designers will be working on level 3. Over the course of the project you're paying for those 10 designers no matter how busy they are.
If level 3 was designed to be DLC from the off you could have created that level after all the other levels had been content complete. Since designers can now be reused you'd only need 8 designers over the course of the project. Developer saves some money. Publisher doesn't have to pay as much.
I think that most DLC uses this clever allocation of staff now. Maybe they're not starting the new content straight after they've shipped the game like you all want, but staff are starting it once they are more free to do so.
Sometimes this DLC content is going to be completed before the full game is released. Either by slippages or avoiding the new Call of Duty like the plague.
If one is "OK" then the other is also.
Would you buy a house if afterward you had to buy the attic or basement separate? "Here's the keys to your brand new house Mr. Stevens. Oh by the way, if you want in the attic it will be an extra $20k." I don't think so. That would be a deal breaker for almost everyone. Only the crazy and extremely stupid would go along.
You see, the difference between DLC on the disk and real DLC you have to download is the difference between having to buy access to the attic in the house you just bought and hiring a contractor to build an attic into a house that does not have one. They both cost the same. So what's the big deal.
As a game consumer, It is well within my rights to assume that I have bought everything that is contained on the disk at retail. So why am I being charged extra to gain access to content that I have already paid for?
The issue is 100% a thing of perception. If your perception is that $60 is the value of everything on the disk, then having part of it require payment to unlock feels like a rip-off. In reality, that extra content may only exist because they're charging extra for it, but only gamers who perceive things to be that way will think that it's fair.
And, yes, before you say it, I know that only applies to some situations. Like everything else, some DLC is going to be a rip-off and some will bring a lot of fun and quality for the money spent.
Yes it is the publisher's decision. But that does not change the argument of ownership. Just because copyright laws are not "current" does not mean that producers of copyrighted works can doble charge us for content we feel we have rightfully purchased.
I am not saying that we have rightfully purchased content we actually have to download, but we did rightfully purchase content that is on the physical media that we purchased.
You may think that purchasing games is a license rather than a purchase, but the fact is the consumer has a decades old perception that they actually own a copy of everything on the disk. This has been made into a fact for them because of the film, literature and music industries. The games industry is not going to change that perception so they might as well live with it and treat game consumers the same way.
Depends on the content. If level 12 and 13 were missing unless i bought a key to unlock it then yes. If a major multiplayer mode is missing unless i had to buy a key to unlock it then yes. If it was just some extra items that isn't going to stop be from completing and experiencing the full game then probably not.