|
|
Post by justjustin on Mar 16, 2009 11:13:38 GMT -5
DLC is a way to wheedle another few dollars out of a customer and Defunkled summed it up perfectly; "[if] this DLC gets even moderately good word-of-mouth, you know deep inside you'll want to buy it. [insert whatever company] knows that, but who cares?"
Those few extra dollars add up, especially across multiple dlc from multiple games... money that could have been spent on a different game-- perhaps a better game, more worthy of one's time-- altogether. It's easier than ever for a game to keep a player locked in these days, Metal Gear Online farting out all sorts of expansions and updates for example. It's certainly not criminal or dishonest, but it's hurtful in general to the quality of games because the only way to compete with dlc is more dlc, not necessarily better or different games. How long can players keep paying small increments for a game they like? How long can a single game keep pinching dollars? And I absolutely agree, of course people will want to pay more for something they like; keep adding ten dollars "episodes" to Resident Evil 5 (Capcom could pull it off!) and people will buy them. Turning a blind eye hardly works if a person likes the game, much less love the company that's offering the dlc. Companies cross their fingers for that sense of obligation people feel when they can't quite get everything, to break down and spend those few extra dollars.
I hate to sound like a crackpot but in a way it's a brainwashing trend. It can only sound good at first; pay smaller dollar increments (because it's tough shelling out 60 dollars chunks) for a game you already like (because who knows if a certain new game will be any good) and support the company (since they make games you enjoy). However, it also forces games to compete on the same field; every game's gotta have dlc. Many people happily anticipate it, and some dread it as I do. I can only see there being less variety and quality down the road in part because of dlc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord of Joshelplex on Mar 16, 2009 11:17:37 GMT -5
For the record, the VS mode isnt good. At all. It works exactly as well as youd think.
|
|
|
|
Post by pkt on Mar 16, 2009 11:19:36 GMT -5
At least Assasin's Creed tried something new. I certainly don't see what, then. Parkour/climbing tech-demo? I have a hard time calling that new when it boils down to holding down a button and running forward. Also, just because you dont like most of the games cmoning out, doesnt make them shovelware. Just reminding you that I never even said that. No resolution in FFVII unless you buy the expansion. You mean Advent Children?  It wasn't ad hominem, it was my way of summing up my position and saying that we're not going to see eye to eye on this. That's about the most civil way to conclude a heated debate. I could imagine it being a bit more civil, for instance, by not throwing in insults, but whatever. I would be fine with discussing the finer points of this issue with you, but you seem a little too angry and defensive, so I'm more than willing to let the whole thing drop. No one wins when everything degrades into a flame war. I don't think things are headed that way, but if a mod disagrees, I'll shut up right away. However, it also forces games to compete on the same field; every game's gotta have dlc. So? Simply offer what the competition does for less (read: free), there you go, you got them instantly beaten on that front. They won't be able to sell anything for more than what people are willing to pay for it. Nothing says publishers wouldn't transfer to a free DLC model if that's what'd be making them more cash. Refer to Valve, it works. |
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Mar 16, 2009 12:45:11 GMT -5
I don't quite get what's wrong with liking a broader variety of genres other than "what's popular right now", and why that's written off as nostalgia, though. Care to give any examples of what you think is a decline in variety? And no, the number of good games isn't larger. I know, I've counted. Wanna take a bet? You make a list of "game types" that has been lost since your favourite console generation, and I try to name the same amount +1 of "game types" that have been formed afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Mar 16, 2009 13:01:12 GMT -5
valve also slashes prices on the full games and gains record sales, which is pretty neat and says a lot about how games should be priced. anyway, the dlc i refer to is the kind this topic is all about, the priced kind. free dlc is just awesome all around; take it or leave it, no consequences, play it or not, zero obligation, increase word of mouth, etc.
actually, i suppose this topic is actually about how capcom sucks. or maybe how the game business operates, or the decline of quality games, or how games are better now than ever before, or how the justification of dlc depends on the game... it's interesting how all of these topics cropped up just from the mention of a 5 dollar add-on for resident evil 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by spotlessmind on Mar 16, 2009 14:34:40 GMT -5
The consternation over DLC is senseless to me. No one has ever played a finished game. No one has ever played a game that met 100% of its initial design conception, and that didn't have features, levels, or characters cut due to lack of time, budget, or manpower. Before the advent of online consoles, these excised elements remained forever on the cutting room floor. DLC gives developers the ability to push their game beyond the scope of its initial production schedule and budget. Of course, doing so costs the developer money, for which they deserve to be compensated.
Perhaps your anger is due to hard evidence you have that absent the ability to deliver DLC, Capcom would still have expended the resources to create a special multiplayer VS mode anyway? A feature that has never figured in any RE game to date, and is completely ancillary to and separate from the main game experience?
Would you have been as upset if no multiplayer VS mode were ever created at all, or if it were a feature cut early in development that Capcom never publicly mentioned? What about any number of other features that "could" have been created for the game, that we don't have on the retail disc? Is the consumer cheated by their absence as well?
This is all aside from the fact that you're neither forced to buy DLC, nor forced to buy the game it's made for, and if a company's business practices upset you for whatever reason, you're quite free to not support their products. The market will determine whether developers consider it worthwhile to pursue additional DLC packs for their games. Consumers, thus far, have been happy to accept DLC, and I hope it stays that way.
I'll be buying that RE5 multiplayer VS mode as soon as it's released.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on Mar 16, 2009 15:02:26 GMT -5
Spotless, the point here is that content that could very easily have been included in the game is being charged for. Nobody has ever played a complete game? Okay, fine, but developers are taking "incomplete" games, removing features before the game is released, and then selling it to get more money.
Nobody is forcing us to pay for it, sure. But it still feels like we've been screwed when DAY ONE DLC has been released. It would be fine if, a few months down the road the developers decided to make NEW CONTENT to compliment the old. Instead, they're removing initial features and selling them as premiums.
As far as RE5 is concerned, I won't buy the DLC. I refuse to buy any week one DLC, no matter what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by spotlessmind on Mar 16, 2009 15:32:44 GMT -5
Spotless, the point here is that content that could very easily have been included in the game is being charged for. Nobody has ever played a complete game? Okay, fine, but developers are taking "incomplete" games, removing features before the game is released, and then selling it to get more money. Well, how do you know this? Again, is there any evidence this content would have been created at all if Capcom didn't have the ability to sell it as DLC? Nobody is forcing us to pay for it, sure. But it still feels like we've been screwed when DAY ONE DLC has been released. It would be fine if, a few months down the road the developers decided to make NEW CONTENT to compliment the old. Instead, they're removing initial features and selling them as premiums. Hm, why would that be fine? You would rather wait months than have new material available right out of the gate? I'm not understanding this idea that "week one" DLC is bad, but DLC is otherwise okay. The only explanation I can think of here is, I guess, the belief that if the DLC is available immediately after the game is released, that must mean it was finished before the game was done and deliberately removed? That's not how it works. Games must be finished and submitted for first party approval about 6-8 weeks before ship date. The usual practice is for content teams to then switch focus to creating material for DLC. That's up to 2 months to work on extra material while the game itself is pushed through the approval and manufacturing process, well past the point where anything new could be added to it. If the DLC is of modest scope, and especially if any work was done on it before it was cut as a shippable feature, that's certainly enough time to get new DLC content into a finished state, ready to release shortly after the game hits the shelves. Even if content is finished before the approval ship has sailed, that doesn't necessarily mean it "could" have gone in. If a specific team was assigned to work on certain content as DLC from the start (representing additional expenditure of company capital), content that would never have been created within the parameters of the main game's schedule or workforce, it doesn't matter whether this content happens to be finished before the main game is even sent off for approval (though in my experience, I've never seen this). That DLC represents something extra that was only made because of the company's ability to see additional revenue from it. |
|
|
|
Post by megatronbison on Mar 16, 2009 15:42:41 GMT -5
Hey guys, this thread sucks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Justinzero on Mar 16, 2009 16:00:06 GMT -5
Hey guys, this thread holds lots of relevence to the latest ListenUP, which everyone should listen to. Skip to about 70 min in for the topic at hand. www.1up.com/do/minisite?cId=3172882 |
|
|
|
Post by TheChosen on Mar 16, 2009 16:39:45 GMT -5
Wont really matter to me how much they put up DLC, what they put up and how much is it. However, what about The time I finally get my own 360, when its probably have been disconnected and no longer supported by Microsoft? How am I supposed to get my hands on all the DLC? Let alone any Live Arcade game?
Cracking. I bet in few more years we have a way to get all DLC free, so the smartest players can stop complaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on Mar 16, 2009 17:36:33 GMT -5
In other words, there's something VERY wrong if DLC is being offered almost immediately after the game is released. Can you tell me you honestly believe that the developers suddenly smacked their heads and went, "Oh! We should have X mode in the game! That would be great!" and then developed and QA tested those features in the span of a few days? Come on.
And a separate team for DLC from the get-go? Bull. Why bother creating a separate team for DLC WHEN THE GAME HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET. Incorporate it into the main game.
In any event, this is all masturbation. The point is I refuse to buy DLC that I believe could have been in the main game to begin with. That said, I gauge that by when the content is released and what that content is. The extra costumes for SF4, the RE5 multiplayer, and the MM9 extras are all examples of that.
And yes, I know, the MM9 extras weren't released within a week. I can still tell that that garbage could have been included in the game day one.
|
|
|
|
Post by spotlessmind on Mar 16, 2009 18:02:03 GMT -5
In other words, there's something VERY wrong if DLC is being offered almost immediately after the game is released. Can you tell me you honestly believe that the developers suddenly smacked their heads and went, "Oh! We should have X mode in the game! That would be great!" and then developed and QA tested those features in the span of a few days? Come on. You seem to be deliberately misreading me. I said 6-8 weeks between the time a game is submitted and the time it hits shelves, not "a few days". I also said that DLC is either material that was originally planned for, then cut due to time and budget constraints, then revived after the main game has been submitted; or material that's intended as DLC from the start and worked on by a separate team concurrently with main game development. Speaking of which... And a separate team for DLC from the get-go? Bull. Why bother creating a separate team for DLC WHEN THE GAME HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET. Incorporate it into the main game. I must point out that you don't have a clear idea of how the process of game development works. Separate teams is a standard developer practice. Here's confirmation from Capcom itself on this particular case, which supports what I've already said: www.capcom-unity.com/ask_capcom/go/thread/view/7371/13988776/How_come_ye_released_an_incomplete_game_Capcom&post_num=3
"Secondly, whenever we do PDLC, that content exists with its own budgets, it's own profit and loss analaysis with its own forecasts. If it didn't, that extra content wouldn't have been put into production, because it did not fit within the production budget of the base product.
The content that is shipping in the full game exists within its own budget. The content shipping afterward (regardless of how close to release it is... because the goal IS to have it release relatively closely to the base product's release) exists within its own budget. To try and have it release in a timeframe that is relatively close to the initial release, development starts well before the base product is on the shelves. There's no other way to keep it within 3 to 6 weeks of the initial release (which is the goal)."
By all means, continue to be angry about this if you like. I just needed to provide some facts to counter the misinformed and irrational rage about DLC. |
|
|
|
Post by kal on Mar 17, 2009 1:40:46 GMT -5
Wont really matter to me how much they put up DLC, what they put up and how much is it. However, what about The time I finally get my own 360, when its probably have been disconnected and no longer supported by Microsoft? How am I supposed to get my hands on all the DLC? Let alone any Live Arcade game? Cracking. I bet in few more years we have a way to get all DLC free, so the smartest players can stop complaining. Actually TheChosen one of the reasons you're paying for Live is to ensure that Microsoft continues to uphold the download systems and online services...if I remember correctly all the original Xbox games are still online playable due to this. To be perfectly honest though if you aren't picking up a game within 3 - 4 years of it's release that's really your issue that content may not be available. There's plenty of pre 00's PC games that have had patches and content added post release that's largely lost on the internet. If you're interested you should get in while it's there. As I said before the VS mode sounds atrocious (You actually play it Joshelplex or just guessing?). It's not like the content in anyway prevents you from enjoying the game. It's not like most of the people here would have even tried it. The funny thing is if they hadn't have made this DLC (as in VS mode never existed for 5) no one would have cared/had any issues at all. |
|
|
|
Post by pkt on Mar 17, 2009 4:05:19 GMT -5
Care to give any examples of what you think is a decline in variety? Key people behind Fallout now all working on MMOs (and Diablo 3, which is not much different). Not a decent singleplayer TB RPG in sight save for Age of Decadence. Age of Wonders' developers transitioning to making console action games instead. Where are racing games like P.O.D., Motorhead, and Carmageddon today? There's at least a modern Stunts in the form of TrackMania. Wanna take a bet? You make a list of "game types" that has been lost since your favourite console generation, and I try to name the same amount +1 of "game types" that have been formed afterwards. I said "good games", but even that aside, you're missing the point. Most of the game types formed afterwards build on what has come before. Which is why 'what has come before' fading away is a problem - nothing to build on. (Sure, there are the rare games that are wildly different from anything else, but that's ...well, rare) Nobody is forcing us to pay for it, sure. But it still feels like we've been screwed when DAY ONE DLC has been released. It would be fine if, a few months down the road the developers decided to make NEW CONTENT to compliment the old. Hmm, it's not unlikely they decided to add this content afterwards, it's simply that it took less than a day to realize. Anyhow, Steam now supports paid-for DLC. I wonder how that'll turn out. Should be amusing. |
|
