| Luke Quinn |
|
|
No thanks.
I want DLC to be released reasonably soon after launch, but releasing DLC on day 1 makes it fairly obvious that content was held back deliberately. When I booted my copy of Mass Effect 2 on release day (special edition pre-order bla bla bla) to find that there was already DLC on offer, I was pissed. Granted, I understand that they are trying to circumvent EB's (GameStop) corrosive second-hand market, but the bad first impression it gave me has stuck and I went from being a massive fan of the series (games and books) to actively avoiding the final chapter. (plus the game kinda sucked in comparison to the first) |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Arjen Meijer |
|
|
I'd rather have mod support instead but that's just me.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Andy Cahalan |
|
It's now commonplace to spend more money on the special edition so you don't feel like you've bought an incomplete game. I know I've done it, and I'll do it again.
When I buy a game I like to think I'm getting a complete experience. I wouldn't even look at Mass Effect 3 after the day one debacle. The casual consumer (and your core fanbase) sees the greed. 53% of sales on launch day alone? Those are the people that keep your lights on and you just punished all of them. Sure, they're happy to have the complete experience, but not one sane person among them felt like it was a good deal. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Mitchell Fujino |
|
Note that content is _not_ "held back deliberately".
DLC gets its own project management, its own team structure, and its own budget. It's pretty much separate from the main game. This whole "everyone works on it after the main game" spin is BS. It's planned from the start as a separate project. WHICH MEANS, if you say "no day 1 DLC" what you get is less game overall as that budget is cut, not more main game. And no, that cut budget wouldn't magically get added to the main game. That's locked in already. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Ujn Hunter |
|
|
Just give me complete games for my $60. Otherwise I'll wait until your game is <$20 and I won't bother with your DLC.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Dave Smith |
|
I seldom find DLC worth it regardless of when its released. Im sure there are exceptions, but the vast majority of it is crap, unless you like to play dress up with your character.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Jack Matthewson |
|
|
I see more value in putting off purchasing a game for 6 months and waiting for the masses of DLC to be released, then just buying the complete experience for a fraction of the cost. Even less if it's on a Steam sale. There's so many great games out there to spend my time on, I can wait for a developer to get it all out of their system first. If I'm really into a game, I'll buy it day one, but that boils down to literally once or twice a year. Recently it's been Deus Ex and Space Marine. Both excellent games, both with extra DLC released well after the main title, all of which I happily bought and paid for. There is a right way to do it.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Jonathan Murphy |
|
|
Some people don't mind spending large sums of money. But most people want value for their dollar. Please ignore my advice. I'm not a rich and famous person.
|
|
|
| Max Loy |
|
|
I actually prefer DLC to come out a good period after launch. If it comes out at launch, I subconsciously bundle it with the core experience - barely registering above the background noise of the game itself. A DLC that comes out later, on the other hand, can cause me to pick up a game I have enjoyed but haven't played in a while. I find this to be a much more value-added experience, as it adds much longevity to a game that I would otherwise play through only once, or maybe not even finish. Of course, it means that a DLC has to stand on its own more than a day one DLC, but I consider that to be a pro rather than a con.
|
|
|
| Harlan Sumgui |
|
|
and some people like to be whipped and have electrodes clamped onto their nipples. So what's bioware's point agina?
|
|
|
| Kevin Matthews |
|
This reads like propaganda. The only thing I'm confused about is the absence of a cartoon.
|
|
|
| Justin Sawchuk |
|
They just want to get the customer used to buying DLC. Newgamers will grow up with as the norm, how sad.
|
|
|
| Matthew Mouras |
|
|
Do people really want day one DLC, or do they just want the maximum amount of content possible at any given time (at any given price)?
|
|
|
| Matt Cratty |
|
Some people like great stories with prototype-level gameplay.
|
|
|
| Don Moar |
|
How long should companies wait before making the first DLC package available to avoid the backlash of being perceived as having released an incomplete game?
|
|
|
| Michael Stevens |
|
|
1) DLC is only an issue when the main content is insufficient on it's own, as was the case with some recent Capcom games. If the game on disc is a complete thought, then it only makes sense to offer the bonus content as soon as possible and capitalize on people's enthusiasm while it lasts.
2) It may not be the case, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 53% sales for DA:O includes redemption of DLC bundled with the game. If it does, then it isn't a useful [indicator] of people's DLC buying habits. Also, using DA:O and not a more recent game (ME2,DA2) tells me that day-one DLC sales are Probably not trending upwards |
|
|
| Cordero W |
|
|
So essentially he's saying: 'We've brainwashed our customers into thinking day 1 and day 0 DLC is great." Usual PR. Nothing to see here.
|
|
|
| John Flush |
|
"As proof that day one DLC also works in terms of sales, Melo said that 53 percent of all sales for the first Dragon Age: Origins DLC pack -- which was released on the same day as the full game -- were made on release day."
Actually it was probably a bunch of people that bought the game and wanted the 'full experience' and bought it at the same time - hoping the one playthrough they have time for would merit the maximum enjoyment for their time frame. I also find it interesting that I'm sure the found the best number for this PR spin and had to go back all the way to Dragon Age 1 to find it... I find it interesting that the first comment in this list was my exact feelings. Because of ME2's gameplay, DLC, collectors edition BS I still haven't bought ME3 nor plan to seeming I now wait for the fallout to find out if I'm going to gamble with it. They have also quit producing complete editions later on, that have all the DLC in it, so I really just pass on the whole series / games these days that don't do something like that. I guess the $20-30 you miss out on is worth keeping everyone else indoctrinated that it is okay to bleed out your customers. |
|
|
| Robert Cook |
|
I'm new to the industry but I do understand that day 1 DLC doesn't mean content was withheld. That being said, from the consumer side I feel like the majority tends to view it simply as a way for companies to get more money from the consumer. While increased sales are a good thing for the developers, I like to think this isn't the only motivation for day 1 DLC. My hope is that it's mostly, as stated, a way to satisfy the consumer's desire to continue to enjoy the game at their own pace. Even if it is with this good intention that developers offer day 1 DLC, I feel like the intentions are largely misconstrued due to influence from retailers who often push the feeling that you "need" to get the DLC with the game immediately.
My opinion on the topic is that the sweet spot for early DLC is likely somewhere around 2 weeks after initial release. At around 2 weeks the fast players who have finished the game in a few days will most likely still have it somewhat on their mind, and at this point haven't traded it in yet (though they're probably getting close). For the slower players, 2 weeks has given them enough time to really get comfortable with the game and probably be near completion. The new content can then be something exciting to look forward to, and something to motivate them to keep playing. |
|
|
| Maria Jayne |
|
|
And some players, want no DLC at all. You could always go with those people and sell complete games instead.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Joshua Oreskovich |
|
|
It isn't download 1st day content that is the problem, it's the problem that after I have all the content the game is stilldisatisfying. Paying 20$ for a one hour episode, or a character is ridiculous. And needing the rewards, just pisses me off even more.
If you going to sell over and above a limited games worth sell something that is going to be worth it. Or sell a user friendly dungeon design program ~ and actually update that. |
|
|
| Joshua Hawkins |
|
I understand that sometimes a production cycle make's an opportunity of day 1 DLC. DLC tends to need a smaller team, less resources, and less production time. So if a somebody comes up w/ something great in the middle of production you can just task a DLC team to it, and not risk the entire production. Since DLC production can move much quicker it's possible this can be released as day 1 DLC.
Now let's take a From Ashe's, and the ME3 ending fiasco. One of my major gripes about ME3 was the lack of content compared to ME2. Less party members, less side missions, pretty much less everything in terms of content. To me From Ashe's is essentially missing/removed/locked content from ME3. When gamers started complaning about the end of ME3 I knew exactly what was going on. Essentially they were unsatisfied, but didn't really know why. When this happens they'll start to tug at loose threads, and unravel the whole thing. Essentially they are looking for any excuse to justify this empty feeling. A quick comparison of ME3's plot will show there's really nothing terrible about the ending. It's fairly on par w/ most other games. What is wrong w/ ME3 is the content compared to ME2. ME3 gives you less party members, less missions, less mini-games and less boss fights compared to ME2. I don't want to say Bioware didn't work hard on ME3. It has several improvements over ME2, but it's just missing the massive amount of content we saw in ME2, and I think consumers showed that. Sorry I guess I went more on a tangent of ME3's content more than it's DLC, but I think it explains how excluding content from your game to make money on DLC can inintentially upset your fanbase (though I don't think that's what happened w/ ME3). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Mitchell Fujino |
|
I think there's a few different things going on here, probably enough for a few new articles.
1) Some people think the main game doesn't have enough content for 60$. There's been plenty of articles on the increasing cost of content exploring that. (Games like Baldur's Gate simply can't be made for that price today.) 2) There's a definite psychological effect where having item B available changes the perception of item A. (many many studies have been done on that.) I think this is harming BioWare's reputation, but this article appears to make the argument that current day 1 DLC purchases are worth it anyways. 3) Hopefully a minority, but I know at least a few people have misconceptions on how budgeting projects works. (not necessarily the commenters here.) Making DLC doesn't diminish the main product at all; it is quite separate with its own profitability requirements. I've never seen a project that "breaks off a piece" to sell separately. I suppose it's possible, but highly unlikely. An interesting conflux of issues.. I think BioWare should look into #2 and adjust their plan accordingly, but it seems the current course is to leverage PR. Big companies can be slow to adjust, but it'll be interesting to see how this evolves over time. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Chris Melby |
|
|
I'm all for the option of DLC, but here's another option I'd much prefer; how about a UI that doesn't suck balls on the PC? Some of us don't like the Gears-of-War-ONE-button-to-rule-them-all-method, which made ME2 a poorer experience IMO. I'm just ranting, but Bioware's later UI's are amateur at best, which given their history, it really doesn't make sense to why the've taken such a massive dive in quality.
And to add to the discussion, when I preordered the super deluxe editions of Bioware's titles -- on good faith, because of their prior titles -- to find that day one, there was other content that was not included in my $80 game, that really RAGED me. Anyways, with their UIs taking a dump, the massive level of streamlining, and this DLC BS, I stopped buying games from Bioware. I LOVED Dragon Age and Mass Effect, but I hated DA2 to the point of RAGE and ME2's direction left a sour taste in my mouth, so I have no care to ever play ME3 and would rather just write Bioware off as a company I support. |
|
|
| Nate Anonymous |
|
If its ready to be placed on the disc or included day 1, then it could have been part of the total game offered for 60 bucks. The reason it was not is because the publisher was trying to introduce a stealth price increase. Any attempt at creative developmental accounting insults the customers intelligence. Just be upfront that this is variable pricing with a price hike for the complete game.
For me, I just avoid buying games day 1. Eventually the game bottoms out in price and I pick up the best of the doc at a fraction of the price. So thanks EA, cap com, etc for teaching me patience :-) |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Bisse Mayrakoira |
|
The problem with DLC is not that it so often lacks substance (you can always not buy it, after all), but how it hurts the rest of the product before it's even out. Extensive grinding to bore the players into buying "unlock DLC" in single player games. Single player design reduced to forms which allow plugging in DLC later. Pay-to-win multiplayer, again sometimes with "unlock DLC" and sometimes naked pay-to-win. Modding support dropped because people having fun with user-created content might get in the way of monetizing and exploiting the player base to the fullest with official DLC. For the same reason, even single player games "need" DRM up the wazoo. More substantial game expansions do not get made; easier to push out completely forgettable bite-size DLC which will sell regardless of quality because it's impulse buy priced.
|
|
|
| Ahmad Daniels |
|
I think the biggest issue is not a lot of people want to pay $60 for games in the first place. You have lots of frugal and dedicated gamer's who would rather not have to spend 80+ on a game. At most it will take advantage of the excitement of gamers, but patient gamer's will just wait it out for a used copy and get regular game + DLC for $60 or lower anyway.
idk the idea of dropping $80 on most of these games is ridiculous to me. I think production values and original retail cost must go down in order for DLC to truly flourish. Tons of these companies have no business promising DLC it should be saved for games with an audience that stays large after its initial hype wave. At some point someone is going to have to either build tools to make game production easier and cheaper or more companies are just going to have to leave the extremely large budgets to the companies that have money. Not everything has to be $60 dollar high budget games and in this day and age you might just grow your audience and make a better profit if the game itself is good enough. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Craig Hauser |
|
|
I really don't know who they are talking about. I don't know a single person who actually likes day-1 DLC.
|
|
|
| Ben Wang |
|
I've seen people mention wanting a "complete game" several times now. Are there actually any real definitions for a "complete game" beyond "Stuff I arbitrarily decide should be in the game"?
|
|
|
| Dan Felder |
|
|
Classic example of customer perceptions coloring things that shouldn't be colored. However, you can't argue with perceptions - you have to either change them or adjust to them.
Right now, from research and all the comments, it seems people are of the mentality the DLC should be the, "optional add-on" to the, "core game". In short, DLC is mentally treated like an expansion. It's easier to present DLC as an expansion when it's sold a good while after the core game is released. However, other industries manage to get along. Sandwiches are presented with optional added toppings. Add avocado for a dollar to your sandwich and few, if any, customers complain about not being able to get a, "complete sandwich". Hopefully, the industry will find ways to deal with customer perceptions. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Mark Ludlow |
|
If your game can be blown through in a couple of days and people are feeling unsatisfied enough that they wanted more, then perhaps it is due to poor design rather than a lack of DLC. You don't get your entree, main course, and dessert at once in a restaurant and rush through them, you pace them out so you can enjoy each meal before moving onto the next. Day 1 DLC that is extra content, rather than customisation options, feels like an admission by the developers that they haven't given you enough with the core product, that the core game isn't good enough on its own.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Matt Bruns |
|
Yes, I always stash away an extra 20$ to spend on DLC the same day i buy a 60$ game. Is this some kind of proxy target they are presenting to us Nation of Gamer's, so they can drop the 80$ price tag when the next gen hits, and well be like " oh no biggie, it comes with free DLC, why not make it an even hundie bro! Its worth it, i hear ill get to equip my character with earplugs so he cant here me yelling at the tv screen". You have got to be crapping in my taco! DLC is profit driven, even when good intentions are shown, it still ads up to a tool for extended revenue. The simple solution is do not purchase it if you do not agree. My worry is how many devo's are catering to the whims of "temporary gamer's" a direction i do not think is positive for a truly passionate and involved individual.
Check this tasty quote from Peter Moore "Free-to-play will become the dominant pricing model by the end of the decade." I will say this, if micro-transactions get in the way of a gamer "owning" his game and furthermore the characters and story, then this is a fundamental mistake. "The human species has a nack for seeking what they do not have, as opposed to what is already there."(Im not sure if that's an actual quote, but it seems like something that may have been in a short-lived sci-fi channel show:) Inside any true video game lies a soul. Right now many are finding ways to hollow out this concept, and find constant variables that suit the predictable and unavoidable drive to make profit from these creations focusing on human lust, and not passion. Lets remember at the end of the day the gaming industry is a gateway for tens of thousands of creative people who rely on it for their livelihood. It must be protected from vultures and bandulu's at all cost. I speak for the videogame, for it has no tounge. On a side note i need to stop watching so many Ridley Scott movies before i come on Gamasutra to post. Anyhow |
|
|
| Allan Munyika |
|
|
I think developers should focus more on building replayability into their games instead of just running to DLC for keeping players interested in theirs games. Replayability is a great way of adding value to a game, I still have my CoD:MW 1, 2, and BlackOps installed alongside CoD:MW3 installation on my PC and I frequently replay the older titles despite having the latest one installed. Other games that I have replayed include The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and Metal gear Solid 2: SoL (the only reason why I'm still holding onto my PS2). Another game that deserves a nod for longevity is Bethesda's TESV:Skyrim, I'm still playing that game even today and because there is so much content in it. I think developers should take up the old and now little discussed about topic of replayability.
|
|
|
| Don Moar |
|
I'm not in the industry any more so I am asking this as a consumer: If the issue is more a perception (real or imagined) of decreasing content / replayability in the full game and less about offering Day 1 DLC, how do we (as consumers) measure that? Is it even measurable?
|
|
|
| Simas Oliveira |
|
What? This is ridiculous. If he were talking to investors I'd understand "yeah, put whatever out 1st day and 53% of customer base will bite".
I've read all comments and while I agree with the common sentiment around here, I do have to point out that almost everyone is throwing around the $20 price tag as if it's the standard DLC price. It is not, in fact it's pretty rare. Only one that comes to mind is Skyrim's. The norm is $10. Sometimes it's $5 or $6 or even less (for example EA's NFS or Fight Night, Capcom's SF), sometimes it's $15 (Activision's CoD). I find the food analogy is perfect. I can have extra fries or beverage for an extra fee, I don't mind. But charge me extra for something that's feels like the "core" product, I rage. You arguably can have a meal without napkins, but you charge for it and people will get mad. You give rubbish plastic plates, cups, knifes, forks, etc, and charge extra for fine silverware, people will be upset. And don't tell them they are wrong because of schedules, projects, budgets, profit margins, extra hires or something else they don't care about. It might be all true, but that doesn't matter in the end. If I buy a game like NFS and there are extra cars, I'm ok with it. I don't feel the need to drive all cars in the game. Extra outfits in Street Fighter, that's cool too. Extra multiplayer maps in FPS's? Go nuts! But story driven DLC or extra characters and/or story line just make people feel like they don't own the complete game. I have no facts to support that, just my personal feeling, but if I pay top dollars for a game, feeling that I don't get to have the full game on the day I bought it is a bug bummer. And if you can't convince me, a person who actually knows pretty well about those projects, budgets, schedules, certification processes shenanigans, you won't convince the average joe who can't tell a publisher and a developer apart. |
|
|
| Simas Oliveira |
|
Double post, sorry...
|
|
|
| Eric Geer |
|
|
The more DLC that comes out--the less I seem to care about it.
I think the only DLC that I have paid for in a while is the BF3 Premium--I bitched and bitched about it, but inevitably payed for it because I could save a few bucks than buying all the maps individually. Before that....um...not really sure what..maybe like $5 "Monster Hunter" weapons for Dragon's Dogma. Am I unhappy with it, Yes. Am I so unhappy with it that I would stop playing on of my favorite games, No. But I tell you this. I wouldn't throw $50 for DLC at just any game. The game must be special. Outside of the usual reasons, Day 1 DLC always bothered me because I always wondered who the fuck finished the game in the first day and has time to even get to the DLC. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Christopher Thigpen |
|
As a player and developer. That is a bold faced mistruth.
No consumer wants DLC just as the game is released. That is false. Inserting their marketing ethos doesn't mean it is truth. I feel cheated of sorts if i purchase a game and there is already first day DLC. it makes me feel like the company is gouging the players for money. almost like improper begging and armed robbery. |
|
|
| Jonathan Arsenault |
|
"Some players want day-one DLC", some of those peoples are just retarded and the rest of those liars came from the marketing department...
|
|
|
| Stuart Brown |
|
Let's put some figures together.
An old gamespot posting reported that, a week after launch, revenue for game DLC for Dragon Age Origins had exceeded $1m. (http://uk.gamespot.com/news/dragon-age-dlc-nets-1-million-bf1943-sells-12m-62398 18) This article reckons that this "well over $1m" corresponds to 53% of the total DLC sold. So the total revenue for DLC is roughly $2m - $2.3m. There were 7 different DLCs offered, but only the first 2, which were $15 and $7, were available at launch. Make the simplifying assumption that everyone bought both, then $1.2m / 23 = ~50,000 people bought launch DLC. For comparison, Dragon Age Origins sold about 3.2m worldwide, according to a Destructoid post from last year. So about 3.1% of players bought DLC total . So lets refigure the headline with our back of the envelope calculations: "Bioware: About 50,000 Dragon Age: Origins players wanted Day One DLC". This conversation reminds me of Edward Norton's monologue in Fight Club, over the calculation made by automobile companies about the cost of a recall versus the cost of fighting court battles over faulty parts. Simply put, Bioware is counting the cost of mining this profitable niche (the intangible: the badwill generated, reputation damage and tangible: content production cost) as being less than the profit from tangibly grinding out the additional dollars from this committed minority and intangibly (benefit: piracy, used sales etc.). Normalising it through obfuscation of the numbers involved is part of this. |
|
|
More: Console/PC, Business/Marketing, GDC Europe