Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
Analyst questions validity of unusual January NPD results [2]
 
DICE 2012: Blizzard's Pearce on World Of Warcraft's launch hangover
 
DICE 2012: Insomniac's Price on Quality Of Life, ditching the 'Loser' badge [1]
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
arrow Principles of an Indie Game Bottom Feeder [14]
 
arrow Postmortem: CyberConnect 2's Solatorobo: Red the Hunter [1]
 
arrow Jerked Around by the Magic Circle - Clearing the Air Ten Years Later [39]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
Airtight Games
Art Director
 
Telltale Games
Core Technology - Senior Systems Engineer
 
High 5 Games
Technical Artist
 
XEOPlay Inc
Game Developer (Mobile)
 
Kabam
Lead Software Engineer - Flash
 
Kabam
Lead Software Engineer-Ruby
spacer
Blogs

  DLC Changes How We Define Games
by Luke Bergeron on 10/20/09 12:43:00 am   Featured Blogs
9 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
  Posted 10/20/09 12:43:00 am
 

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.

 
 
Comments

Dylan Woodbury
profile image
Yeah, I think that DLC is going to become huge in the near future, once all games are downloadable. It would be hard not to want to make DLC for a bestselling game if it will rake in all that dough!

Raymond Benefield
profile image
I don't believe that DLC is ALWAYS either what was supposed to be built in or just feels tacked on. Despite my despise for all that WoW is, it is a great example. They have released many a content and that content becomes part of the game and feels intertwined into it, completing the experience. Another good example is Halo. While some of the maps were meant for the original release, not all of them were. Foundry and Sandbox, the forge (map creation) based maps have become an integral part of Halo, both in the casual setting and the competitive scene.

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.

Luke Rymarz
profile image
I think DLC is probably a good thing, since the end result is more iterations and better games. Follow my thinking:

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.


Trevor Cuthbertson
profile image
Actually, the original SMB 2 for the Famicom (what we know of as "The Lost Levels") was something close to what would be packaged as DLC today, except it was a seperate expansion pack for SMB in the form of a disk.

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!

Chan Chun Phang
profile image
Actually, didn't Nintendo have those swipe cards for a card reader on the GBA to add content?

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.

Blake Nicholas
profile image
Any great game that has multiple DLC will usually also have a later release titled something a bit different down the road. So those in need of a label to put on it can put "GOTY edition" or something.

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.

Christopher Braithwaite
profile image
I never really played Super Mario Brothers or any other Nintendo/Sega games so I can't relate to the gaming experience you're defining. I was playing my C64 (actually a 128 in C64 mode) while lots of younger gamers got their start on Nintendo and Super Nintendo. I have always had a concept of additional content in the form of expansion packs, bundles and GOTY editions being part of how I define a game. I remember playing games like Pinball and Arcade Construction set as well so the idea of user generated content for games is natural to me. And for goodness sake, shareware wasn't THAT long ago was it? DLC is just an extension of this tradition and thus really shouldn't have an impact on how we define games. I know I'm not the only one with this view. Rather than DLC changing how we define games, perhaps some gamers are merely experiencing an expansion of how they've defined games. First steps into a larger world and all that.

Adam Flutie
profile image
I really liked the article, but don't know where my stand really is on the matter. There is rarely a game I liked so much that I want to keep playing more of it in little tacked on chunks after the fact. In fact my DLC purchases prove such, I haven't bought any.

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.

Luke Rideout
profile image
I really think it's sad that consumers for the most part are still having a hard time accepting DLC as a medium for expansion, as opposed to a money grab. There seems to be a whole lot of sentiment that it's an excuse for publishers to release an unfinished product and milk more and more money out of their audience. I can't say for sure that there aren't any publishers that haven't taken that idea and run with it, but I can say at least in my own case that I support DLC as a means to elaborate on and continue to support an existing product beyond its original release.

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.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Techweb
Game Network
Game Developers Conference | GDC Europe | GDC Online | GDC China | Gamasutra | Game Developer Magazine | Game Advertising Online
Game Career Guide | Independent Games Festival | Indie Royale | IndieGames

Other UBM TechWeb Networks
Business Technology | Business Technology Events | Telecommunications & Communications Providers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Copyright © UBM TechWeb, All Rights Reserved.