[PATV] Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - Extra Credits Season 4, Ep. 6: Mass Effect 3 DLC

Dog

[PATV] Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - Extra Credits Season 4, Ep. 6: Mass Effect 3 DLC

This week, Mass Effect 3 gives us a chance to talk some more about DLC.<br /> Mac is genuinely awesome in all ways. Keep up with his artwork on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/iris.vggal&quot; target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/vggal&quot; target="_blank">Twitter</a>.<br /> Come discuss this topic in the <a href="http://extra-credits.net/episodes/mass-effect-3-dlc/#discuss&quot; target="_blank">forums</a>!

Read the full story here

ChronoTerror

Insightful and informative as always. But I remembered, when you said "please don't attach DLC to slurpees", I'm pretty sure EA has already done that. Idk if you were being sarcastic and I missed it, but I know they did for sure put codes for armor pieces on Mountain Dew bottles for Mass Effect 2.

Profcrab

I can see how a lot of that makes sense from a developer or publisher perspective, but from the consumer level it's hard not to see it as something that could have been included in the game at launch but was held back as DLC for the additional revenue. Maybe not the case, but when you see a giant publisher do it, you can't help but be skeptical. Personally, I've learned to be patient. If a game has Day 1 DLC, I'll just wait until I can get the game at a discount of the same price of the DLC or more. Since other games have popped up, ME3 got moved far back for me so it will probably be $30 by the time I pick it up.

Overseer76

I rarely buy DLC myself, so I find it strange to see people complain about it in so many ways. That is to say that I wonder how many people who won't even touch a AAA game if they disagree with the art style or perceived graphical quality are the same people who complain that games/DLC are too expensive.

[tangent] Or how many people rush through a gaming experience, then complain that it was too short. "When I was your age..." I used to play whatever games I had until I had explored every single crevice or narrative fork in the road. If I was a wizard in one playthrough, I tried being a swordsman the next time. Doing so usually created entirely different play experiences. Try getting through MW3's campaign with just a pistol sometime. [/tangent]

I personally have accepted that it takes more money (and time) to create games than it did ten years ago, but the price of a game hasn't changed (It's pretty much at the limit of what people will pay now). Some DLC is overpriced, granted (why would I pay 25% more for 5-10% more content?), but if it helps the devs cover the costs and consumers are willing to give a little more for their favorite games, I say go for it -- in moderation, of course.

Finaldeath

The mouse pad comparison isn't so far fetched if you think about the pc version, i agree though that they shouldn't me forcing you to buy other products just to get dlc. I personally can't stand day 1 dlc. Ya, they probably had a bunch of time between when they had to send it out and the launch, but they could have spent more time on it making the dlc it larger and more polished. Or more importantly start working on a patch to fix bugs they didn't have time to get to before releasing the game. More and more games coming out with day 1 dlc and having huge bugs that you can't miss unless you are blind as a bat, they could have spent that time fixing that stuff rather then making more stuff to get more money out of us.

I am however perfectly fine with good worthwhile dlc that comes out a couple weeks to a month after release or several month after the fact. If they have to worry so much about people not being interested in their game long enough to wait for said dlc then they should probably have put more work and effort into making their game worth playing for longer than a week.

ANTIcarrot

This video contains a logic error.

It claims that if a game takes a year to develop, and is locked down the last month, you might as well have the dev team actually doing something, which logically you should then pay for. Except if they started on the new game right away, they'd have a spare month of the development process before they actually hit the certification deadline. Traditionally, when we pay for a game, we're covering the cost of that full cycle, including the '12th month', however a dev team uses it. But now we're being charged full price for only '11 months' of effort and being extra charged again for that '12th month'.

Also a major gaping hole when it comes to the PC market and One Time Activation codes which apply to the entire game.

Project $10 only works when the reward they give us for buying new is actually worth it. However now EA has introduced (to their PC games) a one time activation code for the whole game, so you can't buy second hand. So what incentive does EA have for including good quality DLC as the reward for buying new? None as far as I can see. So yeah... That's getting into full naked money grab territory.

EA had two choices for which DLC to include - and they picked the one which is (arguably) far less value for money. Who honestly thinks of 'ME3' when it comes to Multiplayer? It's easy to come to the conclusion they made the concious choice to hold back the traditional P$10 reward because they knew most wouldn't be interested in paying for Multiplayer.

RaginRednecK

This sort of practice DOES get results from what I've seen, but not the results they are expecting. The numbers tend to support me on this so stick with me. It annoys, offends and disenfranchises so many players that many (VERY MANY) turn to piracy since they can get the DLC without having to buy all this extra crap that they do not want, and probably cannot afford with the world economies sort of in the toilet. Google metrics on torrent trackers generally show a giant uptick in the piracy of games about a week after they come out, but that uptick is alot HIGHER when there is day one DLC that forces you to download or buy extra merchandise. Personally I have not pirated a game since the era of "Don't Copy That Floppy" I figured out as a much younger man that it really was wrong to steal from the people who pour everything they have into making these products. That being said I will add the addendum that I can actually simpathize with some of the folks that DID pirate Mass Effect 2 and 3 pretty soon after its release because of the merchandized driven DLC craze that EA (DAMN YOU EA!!) seems to have undergone over the last few years.

ch3shirecat

A point I'd like to raise is the quality of the games which were used in EEDAR research. I don't mean production (a la budget) quality - I mean artistic and emotional quality. My point being that if we're talking about play-and-forget-until-sequel AAA games out there, then, yes, of course no one will buy the DLC after 9 months. But if we're talking about tried-and-tested games like Deus Ex, Myst, Mario, and Sonic, then the value of a potential should be measured in years (if not in decades) rather than months.

Think of cult movies. Lots of them were not a commercial success at release. Maybe even didn't do good at home media releases during the first few years. But is this really the correct way to measure the financial success of such films as Brazil, which by now have well returned their investment many times over?

Bartheda

I got a question, is it likely or unlikely that the company that gets this closest to being right first would win. If say 'Company A' had a popular mmorts & they released a fps that was connected to it. They then connect that to some kind of farming game or something on facebook. Just as it is described in this episode. Surely when they get ahead they will win. They will be what everyone plays. Even though someone else you know might prefer a game made by 'Company B' because they have everything very similar but with robot monkeys but they got going second & way less people play it?

Iron Lung

Late November 2013: ME 3 Multiplayer still going strong.