Yes, but nowadays, the DLC *is* ready, and announced before the game is even out.
First, sometimes games "go gold" anywhere from a week to a month before a game hits shelves. The gold version of the game is what goes into product. Depending on the studio and type of game, some additional content (costumes, whatever) can be slapped together before the actual retail or digital release of the game. There is nothing sinister about that.
Second, sometimes developers have post-release schedules. In the last decade, this usually involves bugfixes. I'd rather them release games with no bugs and focus on additional content. Mass Effect 2 had a few minor bugs post release. Why? Because it isn't very feasible to justify DLC if your game is broken. Go head over to the BioShock 2 forums if you want a taste of the backlash a company gets for trying to pull that kind of shit. BioShock 2 is still terribly broken and they've released a lot of DLC for it. That just doesn't fly. BioWare though? They released a solid game and they are adding to it. There's nothing sinister about that, and there's nothing sinister about making plans to do that even before the game is released.
Third, your statements are false. You imply that this is how all DLC is. This is not how all DLC is. This is how some DLC is, a very small minority of DLC. Most DLC is not at-release DLC. And even in those cases, you cannot prove that the decision to do so was some sinister "let's cut this from the game and sell it back to the customer" type deal. You are simply arguing from cynical bias.
1) I very highly doubt they still developing content at the time a game goes gold. They are bug testing at that point. Pre-release DLC is stuff that is cut from the game.
2) My statements are not false. Viewed through cynical bias, but frankly, it needs to be in this day and age.
Can you prove this is *not* how all DLC is? That the developers and publishers are out to hug and cuddle us every time we buy their games? No, I didn't think so.
You're arguing from a simplistic view that all developers are looking after your best interests, when they are not.
Once the game goes gold, they keep working. What, should they just quit and not bother to put out DLC b/c they don't want money? Borderlands came out over a year ago, They still have dlc coming. Your stance at this point is stupidly inflexible. I understand if you just don't like it, but it's wrong.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
why publishers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst kind of consumer exploitation as you seem to be putting forth.
Seriously? Is this even in doubt anymore?
So you think every bit of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC to come out is an act of the worst kind of consumer exploitation? Really? Because that's what Kirby here is saying.
The pre-order crap certainly was.
So are you talking about all DLC or some DLC? Stop vacillating. Is their recent release of Overlord - a DLC - or their upcoming release of Lair of the Shadow Broker - a DLC - terrible consumer exploitation or not?
If it's being sold in chunks as DLC, it should be on the disc.
Okay, so Mass Effect 2 was released on January 26th of this year. It is today August 28th of this year. So Mass Effect 2 was released slightly more than seven months ago. Lair of the Shadow Broker will probably be out next month or so.
Which of the following statements would you agree with?
a) BioWare had produced this content seven months ago, before the January 26th release date, and purposefully held it back from being included "on the disc" in order to squeeze extra money out of customers.
b) BioWare developed Lair of the Shadow Broker after the game was released, but DLC is bad so they should have waited to release the full game before Lair of the Shadow Broker was complete, and THEN released the whole game (including Lair of the Shadow Broker).
c) BioWare did not have Lair of the Shadow Broker developed before January 26th. They should have released the game then, as is, and should never have developed or added any new content to the game ever again because DLC is wrong no matter what.
but the disc was first released 7 months ago. Are they supposed to send it back in time?
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
Yeah, fucking Frank Herbert, I refuse to buy any Dune books because he took so much stuff out of the first book to make a staggered release of future books.
but the disc was first released 7 months ago. Are they supposed to send it back in time?
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
Yeah, fucking Frank Herbert, I refuse to buy any Dune books because he took so much stuff out of the first book to make a staggered release of future books.
but the disc was first released 7 months ago. Are they supposed to send it back in time?
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
Yeah, fucking Frank Herbert, I refuse to buy any Dune books because he took so much stuff out of the first book to make a staggered release of future books.
He should have released all 2,000,000 words in one big fat tome. He fucking hated us.
but the disc was first released 7 months ago. Are they supposed to send it back in time?
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
Yeah, fucking Frank Herbert, I refuse to buy any Dune books because he took so much stuff out of the first book to make a staggered release of future books.
but the disc was first released 7 months ago. Are they supposed to send it back in time?
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
Yeah, fucking Frank Herbert, I refuse to buy any Dune books because he took so much stuff out of the first book to make a staggered release of future books.
Completely not the same and you know it.
It is! I know despite all evidence to the contrary that Frank Herbert wrote every single word of every single Dune book at the same time and the only reason he refused to publish them as one incredibly large book is because he wanted to sucker his readers into buying future DLC installments.
Oh hey, does your ire at all DLC extend to free DLC and post-release patches?
but the disc was first released 7 months ago. Are they supposed to send it back in time?
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
Yeah, fucking Frank Herbert, I refuse to buy any Dune books because he took so much stuff out of the first book to make a staggered release of future books.
Musicians are the worst. They should never release any song that they cut from one album on another. Also, those douchebags at madden. Why the hell can't they make a comprehensive game! The NFL is pricks too, always making new seasons. One time should be enough to decide the championship!
Autodealerships are insane also. Why do I have to buy parts, and who the hell thinks it's cool to charge for a different spoiler? That should have been included!
Cutting content and then using it later is not malicious... if the game stands along, is a complete product (Knights of the Old Republic 2 could have used a FREE DLC to complete it... Dragon Age's DLC was ignorable, by me at least). If you don't like DLC, I mean, use that to inform your buying, but don't rip out that eye that needs glasses just to spite your face, y'know?
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
but the disc was first released 7 months ago. Are they supposed to send it back in time?
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
Yeah, fucking Frank Herbert, I refuse to buy any Dune books because he took so much stuff out of the first book to make a staggered release of future books.
He should have released all 2,000,000 words in one big fat tome. He fucking hated us.
It wasn't hate, just greed.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Oh hey, does your ire at all DLC extend to free DLC and post-release patches?
Well, honestly, I would still rather have it on the disc than as DLC, whether it's free or not. Personal preference on my part. I wouldn't use the word "ire".
Oh hey, does your ire at all DLC extend to free DLC and post-release patches?
Well, honestly, I would still rather have it on the disc than as DLC, whether it's free or not. Personal preference on my part. I wouldn't use the word "ire".
So you just don't like downloading things? Are you Amish?
So are you unable to answer my A, B, C post, PPKKBB, or what? I want to know exactly what your argument is. I laid out the three possibilities. If your opinion isn't actually covered by one of those three, I'd like to know exactly what it is.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
Then that is a slightly weird quirk on your part, but understandable... a lot of games do release it all on disk at some point. You have options I suppose.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Oh hey, does your ire at all DLC extend to free DLC and post-release patches?
Well, honestly, I would still rather have it on the disc than as DLC, whether it's free or not. Personal preference on my part. I wouldn't use the word "ire".
So you just don't like downloading things? Are you Amish?
Then that is a slightly weird quirk on your part, but understandable... a lot of games do release it all on disk at some point. You have options I suppose.
At this point, I usually wait and see if their are special/Gold/GOTY editions, and if there are, I buy those. Otherwise I buy used. Which brings us full circle!
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
I should really just save this to a notepad file so I don't have to go back into the thread to find it over and over again:
when an item has a secondary resale market the original purchaser (especially someone who later sells the game) takes this fact into account and positively effects their decision to buy it creating a value of the item in the secondary market due the fact it helped sell the game the first time.
Not that I'm disputing the truth to this, but it assumes a few things.
1 - that there's further similar product to be had.
2 - or there's a healthy supply of the original product in the primary market that exists and renewed at all times
Number 1 means you're doing well enough to overcome any game industry selling problems to have sequels.
Number 2 is simply not true in most cases. Once something sells out in the game industry, there isn't usually second printings unless it's very popular. Some games you can only find used these days. This is exasperated by the fact that a lone-business driving a lot of the supply - they can choose simply not to stock more from the primary market and focus on procuring the product used to fuel demand into the secondary market instead.
There really isn't an opportunity for word of mouth to sell your product over time if you don't do well on the first introduction. A big part of that is the environment Gamestop has created - using pre-orders to (sometimes inaccurately) measure interest and determine their stocking, and then using the used gamed market to limit their restocking. Perhaps interest is eventually generated through the secondary market, but at that point it might be too late for the primary.
Makes the market a lot more risk unfriendly for new creative ideas then it needs to be.
I know little about economics - aside from what I think I know - so take my words with salt. I just can't help but think that the big ugly thing that Gamestop has created has gotten to the point where a statement of "You aren't our customer" actually has some truth in it for certain titles who died out the door, where if the primary market had a bit more longevity that wouldn't be the case.
I dunno. Is there any other industries that have had to deal with a huge behemoth secondary market?
Edit: Of course, being digital is nice as supply is unlimited and always on the shelf. of course, the console market doesn't have that option yet
SNIP.
I don't understand what your argument to my point is, based upon your post. The supply of the original product can actually makes the secondary value of the game worth more, which again increases the value of the new game.
The two classic examples I can think of are: Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 for Xbox and Chrono Trigger for SNES. Both cost more used than they ever did new because there was a very low original supply. I never understood why they didn't produce more for these games (I always remember looking at the Funco land buy/sell sheet and seeing Chrono Trigger at like $80 every time I went there)
In these cases it would be in the best interest of the publisher/developer to produce more new copies. However they didn't for whatever reason (lost their license to do so, or whatever).
I know you said that there is only a limited production run, but what I don't understand is, if you see the game has a large used market there is obviously more money to be made for the developer. Why doesn't your business model allow for a reprint at a discounted price. Maybe add a feature or two (which happens consistency with "Game of the Year" editions).
Again no one is stopping you from printing more products, or lowering the price, or giving away more features with the games you sell. If you don't do it, that's your fault. Yes I understand there are costs with production, creating new (updated) products for the same game but that's a risk you take if you want to add revenue.
Also if your game "Died out the door" and got heavy sales in the used market, I'll let you in on a little 'econcomic secret'
The retail price for your game was too high.
Again it's all about value, if the consumer base decides that $60 isn't the right price for your game and that $30 is, that's not the consumer fault, or GameStops fault, it's the developers/publishers fault.
And you don't know the retail price was too high. It could easily be poor marketing. It might be worth $60 to someone, but that doesn't help if he never heard of it.
You make it sound like it's easy to do second printings, and obviously there's more to it then just doing it otherwise it'd be common. The facilities a publisher has might be limited, but I wouldn't be surprised most of the reason is Gamestop's secondary market absorbs much of the demand for second printings, anyways.
A) Regarding Rock Band and Guitar Hero, I'd just like to point something out...those DLC's cost the developer money, quite directly, in the form of licensing the damn song. Sure, they could have thrown 20 or 40 or 60 or 1,000 more songs on the disc...and then the game would have to cost more, because the labels/artists/songwriters need to get paid there too.
On other DLC, it's a mixed bag. Personally, I think the price charged can be informative here...see MW2's $15 map packs. They could have released those for $10, and still made $texas, but they charged $15 for three new maps (and two ported maps). At that point I'm comfortable saying that the only thing keeping them from porting all the previous CoD4 maps over (or at least the 4 they've chosen so far) was a desire to wring more profit out of customers...the effort there would have been trivial. Those maps probably fit the textbook definition of "content held back for staggered monetization." Especially because they're non-transferable content...if I were to sell off my MW2 copy because I finally got bored with it, that's $30 they can pull from another customer.
On the other hand, not all content fits this description. DLC has always been around, in the form of expansion packs. It's not like Blizzard was just holding Brood War back, they just legitimately saw changes that could be made and content added as a benefit to existing customers. Many modern DLC items do the same thing, and were probably developed after release (or after QA had begun), and DLC gives them a way to release it piecewise cheaply rather than wait until they can box up a proper "expansion pack" and ship it out to store shelves. I see no problem with that.
As an aside, now that I'm thinking about it, Gamestop's prominence as a used game dealer coincides with console publishers offering far less player's choice options. I wonder how one might have influenced the other.
You make it sound like it's easy to do second printings, and obviously there's more to it then just doing it otherwise it'd be common. The facilities a publisher has might be limited, but I wouldn't be surprised most of the reason is Gamestop's secondary market absorbs much of the demand for second printings, anyways.
Outside of legal issues (licensing, etc.) though, there's zero reason not to reprint a game that's selling used for more than retail.
Though I suppose nowadays that's just as easily accomplished with downloadable versions.
As an aside, now that I'm thinking about it, Gamestop's prominence as a used game dealer coincides with console publishers offering far less player's choice options. I wonder how one might have influenced the other.
This is true. Between GameStop, eBay, Craigslist, and amazon.com, it has become much easier for somebody to track down a used copy of a game they want, and from what I can tell this has meant far less "ZOMG VALUABLE!" used games for even remotely current systems.
Though I still shake my head when I see Ico selling for $40+ used, and wonder why the hell they can't just fire off another run of that game. Though with PS3 axing back-comp, I guess that becomes less likely.
but the disc was first released 7 months ago. Are they supposed to send it back in time?
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
OK, if you truly are arguing from a point of lack of information, as I said in my first post: I work in games development, so let me help you out:
Games are huge and complicated things. Discs are a finite size. Xbox discs are DVDs and have so much Microsoft protection on them, there is only about 60% of the available space actually useable for games data.
Up until the game passes Beta, development is done from HD for speed and compression of data may not be as tight as the final version, to save time in compression and decompression. Time is money. Development discs are made intermittently to spot loading lag and other timing related issues. Also occasional small Master Batches 'Silver' discs are made by Microsoft for testing, but they take a week or so to come back, so are less useful than they could be.
Once the game passes Beta, crunching everything onto the discs is partly a science and partly guesswork based on those Silver discs. Some levels just won't quite fit now. Some graphics that used to fit got updated to better models and textures quite late and are now pushing other things off the disc.
It's better to have too much and be able to cut it than have too little and be accused of short-changing the customer.
So, a decision is made: what can be taken off and made DLC without spoiling or impacting on the rest of the game?
Whole levels/maps/campaigns/cars/costumes? OK, which are the strongest that can be made worth paying for as DLC? Do they leave too big a hole in what's left?
Juggle, juggle, juggle, juggle. Ping!
Final decision is made, master discs get made, checked some more, DLC gets siphoned off and starts to be polished more, and made able to be integrated back into the game cleanly.
Game goes Gold.
Gold disc goes to duplication. Time passes.
DLC is continued to be worked on. Bugs are found that need to be addressed as a result of taking stuff out. These are put into patches.
More time passes. Discs are ready to be packaged and sent to distribution.
More polish on the DLC and patches.
Game ships, you buy it. DLC may be available soon after or much later.
DLC that you have to buy should not be coming out at the same time a game gets released.
Explain to me the difference between having three $10 DLC options come out 0, 3, 6, and 9 months after launch and having a full $40 expansion pack come out 12 months after launch.
I can almost guarantee that some part of Frozen Throne or Brood War could theoretically have been ready at or near street date for SC/WC3.
You make it sound like it's easy to do second printings, and obviously there's more to it then just doing it otherwise it'd be common. The facilities a publisher has might be limited, but I wouldn't be surprised most of the reason is Gamestop's secondary market absorbs much of the demand for second printings, anyways.
Outside of legal issues (licensing, etc.) though, there's zero reason not to reprint a game that's selling used for more than retail.
Though I suppose nowadays that's just as easily accomplished with downloadable versions.
As an aside, now that I'm thinking about it, Gamestop's prominence as a used game dealer coincides with console publishers offering far less player's choice options. I wonder how one might have influenced the other.
This is true. Between GameStop, eBay, Craigslist, and amazon.com, it has become much easier for somebody to track down a used copy of a game they want, and from what I can tell this has meant far less "ZOMG VALUABLE!" used games for even remotely current systems.
Though I still shake my head when I see Ico selling for $40+ used, and wonder why the hell they can't just fire off another run of that game. Though with PS3 axing back-comp, I guess that becomes less likely.
Honestly, I could see them adding it back in at some point in a 4.xx or 5.xx firmware update.
1) The reason they axed it was to promote sales of PS3 games. The PS3 is really coming into its own now and I don't think they are too worried about not selling PS3 games anymore, at least not over the dwindling PS2 game market.
2) Wasn't PS2 compatibility software-based? I think the very first hardware model had an extra chip that aided in PS2 compatibility, but the second one didn't have the chip and handled it all via software or something? I can't exactly remember if this is the case, but I am pretty sure it is.
3) I heard a rumor that PS2 games might come to PSN? Again, I'm not sure if this is the case, but it would make sense, and it would make sense to enable PS2 backwards compatibility for everyone if that did ever happen.
I won't hold my breath, but I've been thinking of this lately and I can see it actually happening.
3) I heard a rumor that PS2 games might come to PSN? Again, I'm not sure if this is the case, but it would make sense, and it would make sense to enable PS2 backwards compatibility for everyone if that did ever happen.
Here's where we get into game developers/publishers (probably more publishers, since devs already got paid) fucking over consumers...because starting to release PS2 games on PSN actually gives them incentive not to add back-comp back in. Because now if your PS2 dies they can sell you a new copy of Ico for $15, even though you have a copy sitting on your shelf.
I think some people don't get that development of "DLC" (previously expansion packs) has pretty much always been something that happened immediately after, or even before, a game's release. At the same time they're finishing up QA and getting ready to put out StarCraft, they were probably already starting up on Brood War. The major difference is that now, with DLC, they can actually drop small parts of that much earlier than before.
That, and what McGuffin said.
That doesn't mean some of it isn't about milking customers...see my post on MW2. But that's not all that causes it.
3) I heard a rumor that PS2 games might come to PSN? Again, I'm not sure if this is the case, but it would make sense, and it would make sense to enable PS2 backwards compatibility for everyone if that did ever happen.
Here's where we get into game developers/publishers (probably more publishers, since devs already got paid) fucking over consumers...because starting to release PS2 games on PSN actually gives them incentive not to add back-comp back in. Because now if your PS2 dies they can sell you a new copy of Ico for $15, even though you have a copy sitting on your shelf.
While true, it hasn't stopped people from buying PS1 games. Granted, the PS1 is a lot older, but all PS3s have PS1 backwards compatibility.
DLC that you have to buy should not be coming out at the same time a game gets released.
Explain to me the difference between having three $10 DLC options come out 0, 3, 6, and 9 months after launch and having a full $40 expansion pack come out 12 months after launch.
I can almost guarantee that some part of Frozen Throne or Brood War could theoretically have been ready at or near street date for SC/WC3.
1) 12 months after, there has been time to consider player response. What people liked, what they didn't.
2) An expansion pack has a cohesive stand-alone narrative.
3) If it's ready at release, it should just be included as a patch.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I despise DLC purely because I foresee the day when you can buy extra shit that outright makes you better in competitive games. I'm not exactly enthused about paying for extra maps, but that's ok because I don't.
DLC that you have to buy should not be coming out at the same time a game gets released.
Explain to me the difference between having three $10 DLC options come out 0, 3, 6, and 9 months after launch and having a full $40 expansion pack come out 12 months after launch.
I can almost guarantee that some part of Frozen Throne or Brood War could theoretically have been ready at or near street date for SC/WC3.
1) 12 months after, there has been time to consider player response. What people liked, what they didn't.
2) An expansion pack has a cohesive stand-alone narrative.
3) If it's ready at release, it should just be included as a patch.
1) On one hand, I think this is somewhat fair, but on the other, I'm not sure player feedback necessarily matters. If I am writing a trilogy of books, and I have the entire thing planned out in my head beforehand because I want to tell a very precise story, should I listen to readers? Would that even be right? Isn't my first duty as a writer to my own vision? I'll admit that books aren't perfect analogues for video games, but I don't agree that this point - that player response needs to be considered - is an absolute given. I don't think it is wrong, but it certainly isn't necessary or even wrong for a company to just go on their own merry way with expanding their story, at least not from a moral perspective (though this is almost definitely true from an intelligent business perspective).
2) This also isn't necessary in my opinion. It is usually the case, and usually nice when it happens, but I don't agree that the only proper expansion is one that includes a standalone narrative.
3) I understand where this is coming from, but why "should" or what do you mean by "should"? Why is this the case? It just sounds like a reaction based, again, on some kind of cynical bias.
3) I understand where this is coming from, but why "should" or what do you mean by "should"? Why is this the case? It just sounds like a reaction based, again, on some kind of cynical bias.
Exactly. If we're talking about new content, rather than just tweaks and bug fixes, I see no reason it should be free. I'd like it to be, obviously, but I'm just one side of the equation...as far as content goes, they owe me nothing more than what was on the disc when I chose to buy it (and, IMO, the option to sell that disc if I decide I'm unhappy with it).
1) 12 months after, there has been time to consider player response. What people liked, what they didn't.
2) An expansion pack has a cohesive stand-alone narrative.
3) If it's ready at release, it should just be included as a patch.
To (1), that works both ways. They can get player response to the initial DLC offerings, and use that to tweak future DLC...whereas Frozen Throne is just Frozen Throne, take it as a whole or don't. To (2), this is usually true but not always...see Rush Hour. And some others, I'm sure. Not all games have stories as such. As for the last, already covered.
DLC that you have to buy should not be coming out at the same time a game gets released.
Explain to me the difference between having three $10 DLC options come out 0, 3, 6, and 9 months after launch and having a full $40 expansion pack come out 12 months after launch.
I can almost guarantee that some part of Frozen Throne or Brood War could theoretically have been ready at or near street date for SC/WC3.
1) 12 months after, there has been time to consider player response. What people liked, what they didn't.
2) An expansion pack has a cohesive stand-alone narrative.
3) If it's ready at release, it should just be included as a patch.
1) On one hand, I think this is somewhat fair, but on the other, I'm not sure player feedback necessarily matters. If I am writing a trilogy of books, and I have the entire thing planned out in my head beforehand because I want to tell a very precise story, should I listen to readers? Would that even be right? Isn't my first duty as a writer to my own vision? I'll admit that books aren't perfect analogues for video games, but I don't agree that this point - that player response needs to be considered - is an absolute given. I don't think it is wrong, but it certainly isn't necessary or even wrong for a company to just go on their own merry way with expanding their story, at least not from a moral perspective (though this is almost definitely true from an intelligent business perspective).
2) This also isn't necessary in my opinion. It is usually the case, and usually nice when it happens, but I don't agree that the only proper expansion is one that includes a standalone narrative.
3) I understand where this is coming from, but why "should" or what do you mean by "should"? Why is this the case? It just sounds like a reaction based, again, on some kind of cynical bias.
1) If you plan to have a trilogy. But I'm gonna to guess that most of the time expansion packs are made because the original sold well and people want more, and are not something that would have happened regardless.
2) Well it is.
3) Because "some stuff wasn't quite ready when the game went into publishing, but we had some time and it's done now so here's a patch" makes me want to continue to buy games from this developer because it tells me they are committed to providing the best quality product they can.
While "we did finished up some minor stuff for the game you are buying, but if you want it you have to pay another $10!" makes me not want to buy the game in the first place, think they don't actually care about producing a complete product, and makes me consider the actual price of the game to be 70 and not 60, and if I was already not that into paying 60 I sure as hell won't pay 70.
I want to be able to pick up a box in a store, and be confident that what I am paying for is as complete, high quality a product as the maker was able to produce. I do not want to have to start counting actual hours of game play in the box, how much I will have to pay for more content, etc. Because I have no interest in playing that game, and just won't buy it at all.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I despise DLC purely because I foresee the day when you can buy extra shit that outright makes you better in competitive games. I'm not exactly enthused about paying for extra maps, but that's ok because I don't.
so you despise something because of what it can potentially mean? That makes no sense at all. I can understand despising specific DLC , but despising DLC in general?
CasedOut on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
I despise DLC purely because I foresee the day when you can buy extra shit that outright makes you better in competitive games. I'm not exactly enthused about paying for extra maps, but that's ok because I don't.
League of Legends lets you pay for extra rune pages, which fits this category. It is frustrating.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
I despise DLC purely because I foresee the day when you can buy extra shit that outright makes you better in competitive games. I'm not exactly enthused about paying for extra maps, but that's ok because I don't.
so you despise something because of what it can potentially mean? That makes no sense at all. I can understand despising specific DLC , but despising DLC in general?
I despise it because it's inevitable. Was inevitable, I guess, since it apparently already happened, judging from the post below yours.
I also despise it for the reason that you pay a lot of money for mostly cheap add-ons that ten years ago would have been made by enthusiastic fans for free. Like maps. Or extra guns/items. Or badly made extra campaigns. That pretty much covers all DLC I've ever tried .
But I can skip buying all that crap. I do, however, play multiplayer games competitively. That means that if I like one where you have to buy stupid shit to be competitive, I'll end up having to shell out for it if I want to keep playing competitively.
DLC that you have to buy should not be coming out at the same time a game gets released.
Explain to me the difference between having three $10 DLC options come out 0, 3, 6, and 9 months after launch and having a full $40 expansion pack come out 12 months after launch.
I can almost guarantee that some part of Frozen Throne or Brood War could theoretically have been ready at or near street date for SC/WC3.
1) 12 months after, there has been time to consider player response. What people liked, what they didn't.
2) An expansion pack has a cohesive stand-alone narrative.
3) If it's ready at release, it should just be included as a patch.
1) On one hand, I think this is somewhat fair, but on the other, I'm not sure player feedback necessarily matters. If I am writing a trilogy of books, and I have the entire thing planned out in my head beforehand because I want to tell a very precise story, should I listen to readers? Would that even be right? Isn't my first duty as a writer to my own vision? I'll admit that books aren't perfect analogues for video games, but I don't agree that this point - that player response needs to be considered - is an absolute given. I don't think it is wrong, but it certainly isn't necessary or even wrong for a company to just go on their own merry way with expanding their story, at least not from a moral perspective (though this is almost definitely true from an intelligent business perspective).
2) This also isn't necessary in my opinion. It is usually the case, and usually nice when it happens, but I don't agree that the only proper expansion is one that includes a standalone narrative.
3) I understand where this is coming from, but why "should" or what do you mean by "should"? Why is this the case? It just sounds like a reaction based, again, on some kind of cynical bias.
1) Good point, Drez, but you can still change things up as you go - perhaps a character wasn't received as well as you like and you can take measures nudging it back in the direction you want or perhaps following an avenue you didn't original expect to happen. From a gameplay perspective, you have an oppurtunity to tighten lack luster feature or change the emphasis from features that worked better.
I'd also argue you don't really need a year to see what's wrong, as it's obvious about a month after the games out what worked and what didn't. Having a year to experiment, though, that shits valuable.
2) Agreed
3) the problem with DLC is there's a sweet spot window that people are willing to buy it, and usually that window is sometime, like, three weeks after release. Something that close to the heels of your replease date is inevitably something that becomes planned for during your development.
I despise DLC purely because I foresee the day when you can buy extra shit that outright makes you better in competitive games. I'm not exactly enthused about paying for extra maps, but that's ok because I don't.
so you despise something because of what it can potentially mean? That makes no sense at all. I can understand despising specific DLC , but despising DLC in general?
I despise it because it's inevitable. Was inevitable, I guess, since it apparently already happened, judging from the post below yours.
I also despise it for the reason that you pay a lot of money for mostly cheap add-ons that ten years ago would have been made by enthusiastic fans for free. Like maps. Or extra guns/items. Or badly made extra campaigns. That pretty much covers all DLC I've ever tried .
But I can skip buying all that crap. I do, however, play multiplayer games competitively. That means that if I like one where you have to buy stupid shit to be competitive, I'll end up having to shell out for it if I want to keep playing competitively.
I personally like some DLC and dislike other DLC. I don't lump them all into one category without giving it any thought. Really to hate all DLC because of what some DLC does just doesn't make any sense.
I despise DLC purely because I foresee the day when you can buy extra shit that outright makes you better in competitive games. I'm not exactly enthused about paying for extra maps, but that's ok because I don't.
so you despise something because of what it can potentially mean? That makes no sense at all. I can understand despising specific DLC , but despising DLC in general?
I despise it because it's inevitable. Was inevitable, I guess, since it apparently already happened, judging from the post below yours.
I also despise it for the reason that you pay a lot of money for mostly cheap add-ons that ten years ago would have been made by enthusiastic fans for free. Like maps. Or extra guns/items. Or badly made extra campaigns. That pretty much covers all DLC I've ever tried .
But I can skip buying all that crap. I do, however, play multiplayer games competitively. That means that if I like one where you have to buy stupid shit to be competitive, I'll end up having to shell out for it if I want to keep playing competitively.
I personally like some DLC and dislike other DLC. I don't lump them all into one category without giving it any thought. Really to hate all DLC because of what some DLC does just doesn't make any sense.
Well isn't that just rainbows and puppy dogs.
I play multiplayer games competitively. I don't care about singleplayer for 95% of games I buy. I don't care about that DLC you tried and really liked. I care about what I like. And what I like is competitive multiplayer on an even ground.
But I still already broke it down for you by individual category: DLC is cheap crap. Maps don't take so much effort to make that they should cost 1/6th to 1/5th of the retail price of the game. Extra guns and items take even less effort. DLC campaigns are generally shitty trash or they'd be full-priced expansions.
But DLC isn't people. I don't feel bad for lumping it all in one category, and I really don't care if it bothers you or you don't think it makes any sense. So I reiterate: I primarily despise DLC because of the threat it poses to 'even ground' multiplayer competition, particularly on consoles where even the hardware is even ground. Grok?
Posts
Once the game goes gold, they keep working. What, should they just quit and not bother to put out DLC b/c they don't want money? Borderlands came out over a year ago, They still have dlc coming. Your stance at this point is stupidly inflexible. I understand if you just don't like it, but it's wrong.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Okay, so Mass Effect 2 was released on January 26th of this year. It is today August 28th of this year. So Mass Effect 2 was released slightly more than seven months ago. Lair of the Shadow Broker will probably be out next month or so.
Which of the following statements would you agree with?
a) BioWare had produced this content seven months ago, before the January 26th release date, and purposefully held it back from being included "on the disc" in order to squeeze extra money out of customers.
b) BioWare developed Lair of the Shadow Broker after the game was released, but DLC is bad so they should have waited to release the full game before Lair of the Shadow Broker was complete, and THEN released the whole game (including Lair of the Shadow Broker).
c) BioWare did not have Lair of the Shadow Broker developed before January 26th. They should have released the game then, as is, and should never have developed or added any new content to the game ever again because DLC is wrong no matter what.
No, they're supposed to not take stuff out of the game and use that stuff to make staggered releases of DLC.
Yeah, fucking Frank Herbert, I refuse to buy any Dune books because he took so much stuff out of the first book to make a staggered release of future books.
what proof do you have that they've done this?
Completely not the same and you know it.
He should have released all 2,000,000 words in one big fat tome. He fucking hated us.
It is entirely the same.
Now answer my a, b, c post above.
It is! I know despite all evidence to the contrary that Frank Herbert wrote every single word of every single Dune book at the same time and the only reason he refused to publish them as one incredibly large book is because he wanted to sucker his readers into buying future DLC installments.
Oh hey, does your ire at all DLC extend to free DLC and post-release patches?
Musicians are the worst. They should never release any song that they cut from one album on another. Also, those douchebags at madden. Why the hell can't they make a comprehensive game! The NFL is pricks too, always making new seasons. One time should be enough to decide the championship!
Autodealerships are insane also. Why do I have to buy parts, and who the hell thinks it's cool to charge for a different spoiler? That should have been included!
Cutting content and then using it later is not malicious... if the game stands along, is a complete product (Knights of the Old Republic 2 could have used a FREE DLC to complete it... Dragon Age's DLC was ignorable, by me at least). If you don't like DLC, I mean, use that to inform your buying, but don't rip out that eye that needs glasses just to spite your face, y'know?
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
It wasn't hate, just greed.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Well, honestly, I would still rather have it on the disc than as DLC, whether it's free or not. Personal preference on my part. I wouldn't use the word "ire".
So you just don't like downloading things? Are you Amish?
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
For God's sake, I'm on the internet! :P
At this point, I usually wait and see if their are special/Gold/GOTY editions, and if there are, I buy those. Otherwise I buy used. Which brings us full circle!
You make it sound like it's easy to do second printings, and obviously there's more to it then just doing it otherwise it'd be common. The facilities a publisher has might be limited, but I wouldn't be surprised most of the reason is Gamestop's secondary market absorbs much of the demand for second printings, anyways.
On the other hand, not all content fits this description. DLC has always been around, in the form of expansion packs. It's not like Blizzard was just holding Brood War back, they just legitimately saw changes that could be made and content added as a benefit to existing customers. Many modern DLC items do the same thing, and were probably developed after release (or after QA had begun), and DLC gives them a way to release it piecewise cheaply rather than wait until they can box up a proper "expansion pack" and ship it out to store shelves. I see no problem with that.
Outside of legal issues (licensing, etc.) though, there's zero reason not to reprint a game that's selling used for more than retail.
Though I suppose nowadays that's just as easily accomplished with downloadable versions.
This is true. Between GameStop, eBay, Craigslist, and amazon.com, it has become much easier for somebody to track down a used copy of a game they want, and from what I can tell this has meant far less "ZOMG VALUABLE!" used games for even remotely current systems.
Though I still shake my head when I see Ico selling for $40+ used, and wonder why the hell they can't just fire off another run of that game. Though with PS3 axing back-comp, I guess that becomes less likely.
OK, if you truly are arguing from a point of lack of information, as I said in my first post: I work in games development, so let me help you out:
Games are huge and complicated things. Discs are a finite size. Xbox discs are DVDs and have so much Microsoft protection on them, there is only about 60% of the available space actually useable for games data.
Up until the game passes Beta, development is done from HD for speed and compression of data may not be as tight as the final version, to save time in compression and decompression. Time is money. Development discs are made intermittently to spot loading lag and other timing related issues. Also occasional small Master Batches 'Silver' discs are made by Microsoft for testing, but they take a week or so to come back, so are less useful than they could be.
Once the game passes Beta, crunching everything onto the discs is partly a science and partly guesswork based on those Silver discs. Some levels just won't quite fit now. Some graphics that used to fit got updated to better models and textures quite late and are now pushing other things off the disc.
It's better to have too much and be able to cut it than have too little and be accused of short-changing the customer.
So, a decision is made: what can be taken off and made DLC without spoiling or impacting on the rest of the game?
Whole levels/maps/campaigns/cars/costumes? OK, which are the strongest that can be made worth paying for as DLC? Do they leave too big a hole in what's left?
Juggle, juggle, juggle, juggle. Ping!
Final decision is made, master discs get made, checked some more, DLC gets siphoned off and starts to be polished more, and made able to be integrated back into the game cleanly.
Game goes Gold.
Gold disc goes to duplication. Time passes.
DLC is continued to be worked on. Bugs are found that need to be addressed as a result of taking stuff out. These are put into patches.
More time passes. Discs are ready to be packaged and sent to distribution.
More polish on the DLC and patches.
Game ships, you buy it. DLC may be available soon after or much later.
You buy it, or you don't.
Explain to me the difference between having three $10 DLC options come out 0, 3, 6, and 9 months after launch and having a full $40 expansion pack come out 12 months after launch.
I can almost guarantee that some part of Frozen Throne or Brood War could theoretically have been ready at or near street date for SC/WC3.
Honestly, I could see them adding it back in at some point in a 4.xx or 5.xx firmware update.
1) The reason they axed it was to promote sales of PS3 games. The PS3 is really coming into its own now and I don't think they are too worried about not selling PS3 games anymore, at least not over the dwindling PS2 game market.
2) Wasn't PS2 compatibility software-based? I think the very first hardware model had an extra chip that aided in PS2 compatibility, but the second one didn't have the chip and handled it all via software or something? I can't exactly remember if this is the case, but I am pretty sure it is.
3) I heard a rumor that PS2 games might come to PSN? Again, I'm not sure if this is the case, but it would make sense, and it would make sense to enable PS2 backwards compatibility for everyone if that did ever happen.
I won't hold my breath, but I've been thinking of this lately and I can see it actually happening.
Here's where we get into game developers/publishers (probably more publishers, since devs already got paid) fucking over consumers...because starting to release PS2 games on PSN actually gives them incentive not to add back-comp back in. Because now if your PS2 dies they can sell you a new copy of Ico for $15, even though you have a copy sitting on your shelf.
That, and what McGuffin said.
That doesn't mean some of it isn't about milking customers...see my post on MW2. But that's not all that causes it.
While true, it hasn't stopped people from buying PS1 games. Granted, the PS1 is a lot older, but all PS3s have PS1 backwards compatibility.
1) 12 months after, there has been time to consider player response. What people liked, what they didn't.
2) An expansion pack has a cohesive stand-alone narrative.
3) If it's ready at release, it should just be included as a patch.
The bulk of the work probably started the minute SC/WC3 went out the door.
1) On one hand, I think this is somewhat fair, but on the other, I'm not sure player feedback necessarily matters. If I am writing a trilogy of books, and I have the entire thing planned out in my head beforehand because I want to tell a very precise story, should I listen to readers? Would that even be right? Isn't my first duty as a writer to my own vision? I'll admit that books aren't perfect analogues for video games, but I don't agree that this point - that player response needs to be considered - is an absolute given. I don't think it is wrong, but it certainly isn't necessary or even wrong for a company to just go on their own merry way with expanding their story, at least not from a moral perspective (though this is almost definitely true from an intelligent business perspective).
2) This also isn't necessary in my opinion. It is usually the case, and usually nice when it happens, but I don't agree that the only proper expansion is one that includes a standalone narrative.
3) I understand where this is coming from, but why "should" or what do you mean by "should"? Why is this the case? It just sounds like a reaction based, again, on some kind of cynical bias.
Exactly. If we're talking about new content, rather than just tweaks and bug fixes, I see no reason it should be free. I'd like it to be, obviously, but I'm just one side of the equation...as far as content goes, they owe me nothing more than what was on the disc when I chose to buy it (and, IMO, the option to sell that disc if I decide I'm unhappy with it).
To (1), that works both ways. They can get player response to the initial DLC offerings, and use that to tweak future DLC...whereas Frozen Throne is just Frozen Throne, take it as a whole or don't. To (2), this is usually true but not always...see Rush Hour. And some others, I'm sure. Not all games have stories as such. As for the last, already covered.
1) If you plan to have a trilogy. But I'm gonna to guess that most of the time expansion packs are made because the original sold well and people want more, and are not something that would have happened regardless.
2) Well it is.
3) Because "some stuff wasn't quite ready when the game went into publishing, but we had some time and it's done now so here's a patch" makes me want to continue to buy games from this developer because it tells me they are committed to providing the best quality product they can.
While "we did finished up some minor stuff for the game you are buying, but if you want it you have to pay another $10!" makes me not want to buy the game in the first place, think they don't actually care about producing a complete product, and makes me consider the actual price of the game to be 70 and not 60, and if I was already not that into paying 60 I sure as hell won't pay 70.
I want to be able to pick up a box in a store, and be confident that what I am paying for is as complete, high quality a product as the maker was able to produce. I do not want to have to start counting actual hours of game play in the box, how much I will have to pay for more content, etc. Because I have no interest in playing that game, and just won't buy it at all.
so you despise something because of what it can potentially mean? That makes no sense at all. I can understand despising specific DLC , but despising DLC in general?
League of Legends lets you pay for extra rune pages, which fits this category. It is frustrating.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
I despise it because it's inevitable. Was inevitable, I guess, since it apparently already happened, judging from the post below yours.
I also despise it for the reason that you pay a lot of money for mostly cheap add-ons that ten years ago would have been made by enthusiastic fans for free. Like maps. Or extra guns/items. Or badly made extra campaigns. That pretty much covers all DLC I've ever tried
But I can skip buying all that crap. I do, however, play multiplayer games competitively. That means that if I like one where you have to buy stupid shit to be competitive, I'll end up having to shell out for it if I want to keep playing competitively.
1) Good point, Drez, but you can still change things up as you go - perhaps a character wasn't received as well as you like and you can take measures nudging it back in the direction you want or perhaps following an avenue you didn't original expect to happen. From a gameplay perspective, you have an oppurtunity to tighten lack luster feature or change the emphasis from features that worked better.
I'd also argue you don't really need a year to see what's wrong, as it's obvious about a month after the games out what worked and what didn't. Having a year to experiment, though, that shits valuable.
2) Agreed
3) the problem with DLC is there's a sweet spot window that people are willing to buy it, and usually that window is sometime, like, three weeks after release. Something that close to the heels of your replease date is inevitably something that becomes planned for during your development.
I personally like some DLC and dislike other DLC. I don't lump them all into one category without giving it any thought. Really to hate all DLC because of what some DLC does just doesn't make any sense.
Well isn't that just rainbows and puppy dogs.
I play multiplayer games competitively. I don't care about singleplayer for 95% of games I buy. I don't care about that DLC you tried and really liked. I care about what I like. And what I like is competitive multiplayer on an even ground.
But I still already broke it down for you by individual category: DLC is cheap crap. Maps don't take so much effort to make that they should cost 1/6th to 1/5th of the retail price of the game. Extra guns and items take even less effort. DLC campaigns are generally shitty trash or they'd be full-priced expansions.
But DLC isn't people. I don't feel bad for lumping it all in one category, and I really don't care if it bothers you or you don't think it makes any sense. So I reiterate: I primarily despise DLC because of the threat it poses to 'even ground' multiplayer competition, particularly on consoles where even the hardware is even ground. Grok?