|
Downloadable Content for video games is probably here to stay, despite the cries of some fans that developers are no longer shipping the whole game, but instead, asking gamers to pay full price for a half-finished game and providing the rest of the game in small downloadable chunks (for a price, of course).
Of course, not all gamers are pissed about DLC. Some like it, because it means their favorite games receive more updates than they probably would have if the developers weren’t still making money from the game. It also goes without saying that developers like it. After spending months (years?) developing the tools to easily add content to a game, they can take those tools, after the game is out, and pipe out some hot new content to players. In terms of time investment, it’s a pretty sweet gig.
But there’s no doubt, DLC is changing the face of gaming, both the way gamers and developers see games. Whether it’s good or bad remains to be seen.
To show how DLC is changing gaming, let’s pretend we’re the Prince of Persia (from The Sands of Time iteration) for a minute and do a little rewinding into the past. For you older gamers who remember the original Super Mario Bros. (yes, on Nintendo), I’m talking to you.
Think back to the first time you played Super Mario Bros. Don’t worry, I’m not going to romanticize it and talk about the awe you felt or anything cheesy like that. Nah, SMB is just an easy game to pick for this example because it’s iconic and most of us played it when we were young.
So when you think of playing SMB, what do you think of? Strip away all those years of playing games and think about what it was like to play SMB. Think about the first level. You start out, run out of the castle – kill that first goomba, get the mushroom that makes you big, jump over the first pipe, and so on, jumping and squashing enemies until you get to the end of the level.
The thing about the original SMB is that the first level never changes, no matter how many times you’ve played the game, or how far you’ve gotten – you always start by killing that first goomba and getting that first mushroom.
There are a million things that made SMB a great game and I don’t want to list them all here. Instead, I’d like to say that there were two main things that made it a great game: good mechanics and good level design. It’s easy to see that now.
But what about when we were kids? Back then we didn’t separate mechanics from level design. We didn’t see them as two different things. We saw them together, as Super Mario Bros. Mario always jumped the same when you hit the button and the first level was always the same. That first level was SMB. Mario jumping was SMB. The whole package was the game.
Well, technology has progressed a lot since the old NES days, and gaming has changed, too. But DLC could be one of the biggest changes yet. It’s a big deal because it gives gamers the clear distinction between game mechanics and game content. It helps gamers separate Mario jumping and shooting fireballs from SMB level 1, stage 1, with that first goomba and first mushroom.
Let’s go back to that SMB game for a minute, but add DLC. Now, after you beat all 8 levels of SMB, you can download another 8 levels – a whole new adventure after you beat the first story. A new super-power: the raccoon tail. A new main character to play as: Yoshi. Or whatever.
Suddenly, that first level of SMB doesn’t seem so iconic, does it? It’s the first level of the first chapter, but there’s also a first level of the DLC chapter. And maybe another one after that. And maybe his fireball attack doesn’t seem like the ultimate weapon anymore, since the raccoon tail is more powerful. And Mario is great, sure, but Yoshi jumps higher and can eat people and spit them out again.
It’s not the same game anymore. Now SMB is a set of mechanics and levels, powers, and characters are just content to go with those mechanics. They are separate entities. They don’t seem to hold together as well as a cohesive whole.
Well, that didn’t happen to SMB. So let’s go back to the present now, where DLC exists. Right now a gamer buys a game from the shelf and plays it, beats it (or doesn’t), and then heads to the Internet to get some DLC. Another fifty levels, or a new area, or a character outfit – whatever, it doesn’t matter.
But once that DLC is added, the player is able to see the split between mechanics and content more easily. The game ceases to have iconic scenes since it is no longer a complete and finished masterpiece, an immutable thing that can be conquered and finished, but a ball of digital clay that can be changed at any time.
Because here’s the thing: DLC always either feels tacked on or it completes a game that should have been complete when the player bought it, with the possible exception of episodic gaming. But the game was either purposefully short and cut so that DLC could be added – or, the DLC is an epilogue, an extra mode, a thing separate from the whole experience. An afterthought. And afterthoughts can never feel as iconic as the original experience.
But they can ruin the original experience, by demonstrating to players that the collections of content and mechanics and graphics and music that make up their favorite games are just that – collections. They aren’t highly polished masterpieces. They aren’t carefully collected and arranged. They’re whatever made the shipping deadline.
Coz the rest just got slapped into DLC.
And even if that’s not true, if the original game release was a full experience and amazing and all the DLC’s were great an worth the money – it doesn’t matter. DLC changes games so they are no longer static things, but fluid things.
20 years from now, will gamers be looking back and saying, “Man, that 4th DLC for Jimbo and the Rocket Whale, man, that’s what sealed the package for me. That game was great” or will they still be holding up the old classics because the old classics were easier to define as complete?
I’m not sure. Because it’s easy to say what Super Mario Bros is. It’s a guy who jumps. It’s that first level with the goomba and the mushroom and makes you big. But what is Fallout 3? Is it the mechanics? The original release? The game of the year edition? The DLC? The feeling the game evokes? That screenshot of the Brotherhood guy standing there with a gun looking all menacing? Who really knows?
I’m not saying DLC is good or bad. And it’s been pretty successful monetarily so it’s probably here to stay. But it makes games different. It turns games from polished, completed art, into mechanical systems separated from their content. It makes them fluid. It makes it hard to define what’s “cannon” and what isn’t.
And I’m not sure how I feel about that. I want to like it because the potential for great things is there.
But I’m just not sure how.
|
While I do feel that DLC allows companies to milk as much money as they can, I think that it also helps the game. Adding content extends the playability of a game. I remember the addition of all of the DLC for Oblivion and how awesome it was. While yes it does feel that it is just tacked on, it is something more that you can get out of the game. And also if you don't want a particular piece of DLC, say Horse Armor for our example, then you don't have to get it. So it can also be a way to personalize a players experience.
Microtransactions that come in the form of equipment or what not that you can buy for games like Gunz: The Duel, or new planes for things like Ace Combat 6 can be seen as DLC as well. These are definitely ways to further personalize your experience and differentiate your identity in a game from others.
DLC also shows that despite the fact that the game has released the company is still atleast somewhat tending to their customers. While it may not be a very personal connection it is still work they are putting into the game. I don't believe that releasing a game and then letting it dry out is a very good way to treat your customers. I feel that some sort of update to a game shows that a company atleast somewhat cares about their product and shows me that if since they care, maybe there is a chance that I would enjoying caring about it as well. I personally feel more inclined to buy a game that has DLC and updates more than a game that was just released and then forgotten.
At the end of it all, I think DLC will just straight up be the norm. I slowly start seeing it around the communities I spend time around. The want and need for updates for games that fans care about no matter how small the game. I think soon people will expect it from a game. We shall see.
An environment where DLC exists allow me to release a product in a short amount of time (say, 6-12 months). If consumers are buying it, then I release some DLC and get some more money -- Consumers are happy (right?), and I'm happy. If consumers aren't buying, I can move on to another design. I learn a bit, I waste less money.
Compared to a monster 5-year plan, this is instant gratification for a development house. Less waiting, more potentially good products. Of course there's more potential trash (iPhone), but that's what ratings are for.
Consumers are a bigger part of the equation in this, though, and the communication channels between consumer and producer have to develop a bit. It's not enough to speak with your money. Sometimes really great games are hidden under bad art or an awkward UI and don't get the sales they deserve. If a company could get better feedback from those who have useful critiques, they might be able to get more mileage out of a good idea.
But I agree with Luke that once DLC is added, the player is able to see the split and the game ends up, as what Luke said, "a ball of digital clay that can be changed at any time." Great Article!
But back on topic, that's not entirely isolated to DLC, it's the same issues with expansions and sequels of any kind. When you continue an original narrative, it brings into question the initial narrative, like how the Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequels bring into question the worlds of the Matrix and Star Wars respectively.
Though, it also depends on exactly how the game and DLC is structured.
1) Games with minimal narrative are not affected by DLC in most cases. Take N for instance, another 50 levels, DLC, user-created, or otherwise, isn't going to harm the gameplay whatsoever.
2) Games that makes up of variable components to form a whole, like CCGs, benifits from DLC or micro-transactions. No one expects anyone to purchase a whole card set outright, not to mention higher profits by segregating cards into rarity segments then selling random packs.
3) Another way of preventing such issues is to keep the game narrative and DLC separate; The DLC would almost be an entirely new narrative in itself, hence not interrupting the original gameplay. Put it in the same world, same mechanics, but separate the narrative development. Though there can be benefits to interlinking development, but never directly; both DLC and the original game should be enjoyable as stand-alone entities.
As long as the game is complete, the usual length we expect from whatever genre it is, then I have no problems with DLC. Thinking back to Metal Gear Solid or Resident Evil 2 or Final Fantasy VII, I can say that I would have loved DLC to extend those games.
One thing I think Sony and MS should ban from DLC is the map packs because it cuts the community in two, or cuts them into more than two if multiple packs are available. The incentive for creating map packs should be to keep excitement up until your next release.
Yet, I think it is fine for those that loved the game so much they would rather pay $5 for more content than shell out for a whole expansion pack or sequel.
The only DLC I have been tempted for is the Oblivion expansions, but I knew they would put them on a GOTY disc instead, so I just held out. Then bought the GOTY edition.
Of course people can see it as cheapening the experience, a large cross-section of the consumer base see a game as 'incomplete' because there's more content added later on, saying "Why couldn't this have been in the game from the start?", or in the worst case accuse a company of withholding content that could've been included from the get-go for the sole purpose of making more money. If that's the case by all means do make an issue of it but why wouldn't you want your game to grow even after you've gone through it once, in the case of additional content post-release? It's a new experience - to use the SMB analogy, SMB2 (Or The Lost Levels, if you like) was the same game with one or two added items and a handful of new levels but it was accepted as a new game back in 1986.
I think that as gamers we are becoming more accustomed to everything being a brand new experience - if there haven't been major gameplay upgrades it isn't new, and if the major gameplay upgrades are added to the existing game, it's a scam to make more money. We're becoming more critical of the people that make the games we play, but what if Bethesda said they wouldn't release Fallout 3 until they finished everything they wanted to finish in the game? If you had to wait until Operation Anchorage, The Pitt, Point Lookout and anything else they happen to have in the works was ready? People would be just as annoyed that their game was taking forever to be released.
DLC - at least as far as I can see it - is a way to continue building on a finished project. I can even go as far as to imagine a whole franchise being built on DLC expansions - sequels within the game far beyond the 'vanilla' main storyline, and I have no doubt in my mind that eventually there will be a title released that uses that concept and I would see it as a good thing. It seems silly to me that people want publishers and developers to put their game out into the world and stop supporting it beyond that, save perhaps for a patch or something of the like.
DLC in a more readily available form is stil a relatively new concept, of course, and people are used to getting things for free. There're a lot of games, especially in the PC market, that support modding, in which you can pick up a lot of extra content for your games for free as user-generated content and I think that's awesome. But developers can expand in ways that the modding community can't or don't. I sincerely hope that over time people become more accepting of additional content, and would be willing to support the people supporting the games they enjoy.
And hell, it's not as though anyone is holding a gun to your head and telling you to buy something. If you don't want or like it, you don't have to buy it.