Something about developers releasing extra content on, or very soon after, the release of a game doesn't sit well with me. Like why couldnt you just put that stuff into the actual game?
Yes I know money is the reason, but still, seems kinda shitty.
"I felt that, 'Okay, there were too many things to do and to finish.' So we said, 'Okay, let's take a portion of the game that was planned and we'll give it in DLC.' We'll remove some stress to the team while giving more to fans and people who like Assassin's Creed," he said.
I have to leave through the reception area of our office to get to the bathroom, so I always get these short bursts of CNN playing on the television there. Usually what I hear or see in those few seconds are exceptionally stupid, mostly from Tony Harris.
The other day all I saw was a banner at the bottom of the screen that said "YOU ARE IN PERIL" or something like that.
Today I walk past and the banner says "CHRISTMAS PLANE TERROR" and Tony is talking to some lady and says "So how do we tell who are the bad guys, or might be the bad guys, or might be, uh, thinking bad thoughts?"
Something about developers releasing extra content on, or very soon after, the release of a game doesn't sit well with me. Like why couldnt you just put that stuff into the actual game?
Yes I know money is the reason, but still, seems kinda shitty.
The problem here is that there is a lack of understanding among the general public as to the development cycle of a game.
Basically, as of about 3-4 months before the game is supposed to hit shelves (assuming you aren't going for a dev cycle where the game hits shelves long after it's actually done), you can't add new content to the base game without a very good reason. Every day you get closer to sending it off to the various companies for certification (Microsoft for Xbox, Sony for PS3, Nintendo for Wii/DS and your publisher for PC), the risk associated with adding new content to the on-disc product increases exponentially. Ideally, the product you have at 3 months out is almost identical to the product you plan to ship, since otherwise you will never properly test the game. It is ridiculous how complicated some of this software can get, and one seemingly minor change can have a knock-on effect that breaks something completely unrelated.
So, you set up a DLC team. Generally speaking this is about 50% people whose job is specifically to create DLC, and 50% people who are working on the base product that aren't fixing bugs. This team is budgeted and salaried in a separate fashion than the team working on the base game. It's never (well, rarely ever) an issue of 'let's see how much we can pull out of the base game to charge the customer for' but rather 'okay, we want to add this to the game, but it's too close to ship to do something this major. Let's work on it as DLC so we can ship the base game on time and then release this alongside it'. Though obviously I can only speak for BioWare, I assume this to be the case pretty much across the board.
The other side is - yes, it is also a way to make money. Because believe it or not, we like to make money for our hard work. Games are expensive to make, and since DLC doesn't require a new engine/programming optimization to create, it offers an excellent return on investment. It keeps people interested in your game past the initial purchase period. But the idea that this is a 'slippery slope' and someday soon you'll have to pay just to unlock key parts of the game is the kind of doomsday scenario that has yet to occur. If it becomes common to do just that, then I'll agree 100% - that's crap, and definitely on the 'moustache twirlingly evil' side of things. However, there's a two to four month period between when a game can't really have new content added and when it actually hits store shelves. This is why there's Day 1 DLC - it could just as easily be released four months after the fact, but if it's done, why not release it?
vsove on
WATCH THIS SPACE.
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
Something about developers releasing extra content on, or very soon after, the release of a game doesn't sit well with me. Like why couldnt you just put that stuff into the actual game?
Yes I know money is the reason, but still, seems kinda shitty.
The problem here is that there is a lack of understanding among the general public as to the development cycle of a game.
Basically, as of about 3-4 months before the game is supposed to hit shelves (assuming you aren't going for a dev cycle where the game hits shelves long after it's actually done), you can't add new content to the base game without a very good reason. Every day you get closer to sending it off to the various companies for certification (Microsoft for Xbox, Sony for PS3, Nintendo for Wii/DS and your publisher for PC), the risk associated with adding new content to the on-disc product increases exponentially. Ideally, the product you have at 3 months out is almost identical to the product you plan to ship, since otherwise you will never properly test the game. It is ridiculous how complicated some of this software can get, and one seemingly minor change can have a knock-on effect that breaks something completely unrelated.
So, you set up a DLC team. Generally speaking this is about 50% people whose job is specifically to create DLC, and 50% people who are working on the base product that aren't fixing bugs. This team is budgeted and salaried in a separate fashion than the team working on the base game. It's never (well, rarely ever) an issue of 'let's see how much we can pull out of the base game to charge the customer for' but rather 'okay, we want to add this to the game, but it's too close to ship to do something this major. Let's work on it as DLC so we can ship the base game on time and then release this alongside it'. Though obviously I can only speak for BioWare, I assume this to be the case pretty much across the board.
The other side is - yes, it is also a way to make money. Because believe it or not, we like to make money for our hard work. Games are expensive to make, and since DLC doesn't require a new engine/programming optimization to create, it offers an excellent return on investment. It keeps people interested in your game past the initial purchase period. But the idea that this is a 'slippery slope' and someday soon you'll have to pay just to unlock key parts of the game is the kind of doomsday scenario that has yet to occur. If it becomes common to do just that, then I'll agree 100% - that's crap, and definitely on the 'moustache twirlingly evil' side of things. However, there's a two to four month period between when a game can't really have new content added and when it actually hits store shelves. This is why there's Day 1 DLC - it could just as easily be released four months after the fact, but if it's done, why not release it?
I have to say I liked Epic's method of dealing with this, which was to make add-on packs for the Unreal Tournament games free, as a thank-you to the people who bought their game.
It seems to have ruined my perspective on paying for additional content for games I already own.
I have to leave through the reception area of our office to get to the bathroom, so I always get these short bursts of CNN playing on the television there. Usually what I hear or see in those few seconds are exceptionally stupid, mostly from Tony Harris.
The other day all I saw was a banner at the bottom of the screen that said "YOU ARE IN PERIL" or something like that.
Today I walk past and the banner says "CHRISTMAS PLANE TERROR" and Tony is talking to some lady and says "So how do we tell who are the bad guys, or might be the bad guys, or might be, uh, thinking bad thoughts?"
valve's support for tf2 is a pretty great example of a company continuing to provide new content for a game even though it doesn't have a monthly fee or anything
the game's two years old and they're still supporting it with content updates, each of which has added more to the game than the one that came before it
seriously, comparing tf2 now to tf2 at launch is like... they're different games entirely
valve's support for tf2 is a pretty great example of a company continuing to provide new content for a game even though it doesn't have a monthly fee or anything
the game's two years old and they're still supporting it with content updates, each of which has added more to the game than the one that came before it
seriously, comparing tf2 now to tf2 at launch is like... they're different games entirely
It's basically the difference between the PC version and the Xbox version.
Something about developers releasing extra content on, or very soon after, the release of a game doesn't sit well with me. Like why couldnt you just put that stuff into the actual game?
Yes I know money is the reason, but still, seems kinda shitty.
"I felt that, 'Okay, there were too many things to do and to finish.' So we said, 'Okay, let's take a portion of the game that was planned and we'll give it in DLC.' We'll remove some stress to the team while giving more to fans and people who like Assassin's Creed," he said.
I'm enjoying the game hugely, but I hate it when they act like they're doing fans a favour with DLC. Unless they mean it when they say they're giving it to the fans. But somehow, I think they mean selling.
I'd just like to say that 1UP used to be a good place to hear solid opinions on games/games journalism before their senior staff all left. "Them" being Jeff Green, Shawn Elliot, basically the whole GFW podcast crew, John Davison and Luke Smith. They're a mess now, but thankfully Green, Elliot, Smith, Robert Ashley, and N'Gai Croal have a good podcast going with Out of the Game.
QuestionMarkMan on
0
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
But the idea that this is a 'slippery slope' and someday soon you'll have to pay just to unlock key parts of the game is the kind of doomsday scenario that has yet to occur. If it becomes common to do just that, then I'll agree 100% - that's crap, and definitely on the 'moustache twirlingly evil' side of things. However, there's a two to four month period between when a game can't really have new content added and when it actually hits store shelves. This is why there's Day 1 DLC - it could just as easily be released four months after the fact, but if it's done, why not release it?
It's not really evil; it's just a side effect of the fact that publishers will do what the market will bear.
I mean, if you can sell 70% of your customers on an extra $10 of video game that you had lying around anyway, why wouldn't you?
From the business side, how am I going to go into a quarterly conference call with investors and explain why my products can't push through a 20% price increase through DLC but my competitors can? I don't think there's a viable argument that you can make and keep your job with.
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
But the idea that this is a 'slippery slope' and someday soon you'll have to pay just to unlock key parts of the game is the kind of doomsday scenario that has yet to occur. If it becomes common to do just that, then I'll agree 100% - that's crap, and definitely on the 'moustache twirlingly evil' side of things. However, there's a two to four month period between when a game can't really have new content added and when it actually hits store shelves. This is why there's Day 1 DLC - it could just as easily be released four months after the fact, but if it's done, why not release it?
It's not really evil; it's just a side effect of the fact that publishers will do what the market will bear.
I mean, if you can sell 70% of your customers on an extra $10 of video game that you had lying around anyway, why wouldn't you?
From the business side, how am I going to go into a quarterly conference call with investors and explain why my products can't push through a 20% price increase through DLC but my competitors can? I don't think there's a viable argument that you can make and keep your job with.
I would say that, unless you advertise your game as such to the consumers, selling a half-finished game and then charging them extra for the ending -is- kind of douchey. That is a lot different, however, from selling them a full game and saying 'hey here's some more stuff added onto the game, but you don't need it to finish the game'.
But the idea that this is a 'slippery slope' and someday soon you'll have to pay just to unlock key parts of the game is the kind of doomsday scenario that has yet to occur. If it becomes common to do just that, then I'll agree 100% - that's crap, and definitely on the 'moustache twirlingly evil' side of things. However, there's a two to four month period between when a game can't really have new content added and when it actually hits store shelves. This is why there's Day 1 DLC - it could just as easily be released four months after the fact, but if it's done, why not release it?
It's not really evil; it's just a side effect of the fact that publishers will do what the market will bear.
I mean, if you can sell 70% of your customers on an extra $10 of video game that you had lying around anyway, why wouldn't you?
From the business side, how am I going to go into a quarterly conference call with investors and explain why my products can't push through a 20% price increase through DLC but my competitors can? I don't think there's a viable argument that you can make and keep your job with.
I would say that, unless you advertise your game as such to the consumers, selling a half-finished game and then charging them extra for the ending -is- kind of douchey. That is a lot different, however, from selling them a full game and saying 'hey here's some more stuff added onto the game, but you don't need it to finish the game'.
Reminds me of when my friend bought the $10 "Deus Ex: Special Limited Edition" which turned out to be a "you get to play 1/4 of the game"-type of limited.
Blizzard is really great for that. I think they just released a new Diablo 2 patch a week or so ago? I stopped playing WC3 before they brought in like 4 new heroes, too.
I did wonder why they didn't just include Shale into Dragon Age instead of make you jump through a few hoops. Maybe they were testing things?
Blizzard is really great for that. I think they just released a new Diablo 2 patch a week or so ago? I stopped playing WC3 before they brought in like 4 new heroes, too.
I did wonder why they didn't just include Shale into Dragon Age instead of make you jump through a few hoops. Maybe they were testing things?
From what I've heard, that's the case. It makes sense, considering that in a huge number of cases, all dialog with him is bugged by the end of the game.
Also, if you sell the game, the person buying it used doesn't get Shale.
Doc on
0
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
Blizzard is really great for that. I think they just released a new Diablo 2 patch a week or so ago? I stopped playing WC3 before they brought in like 4 new heroes, too.
I did wonder why they didn't just include Shale into Dragon Age instead of make you jump through a few hoops. Maybe they were testing things?
Activison-Blizzard is almost as good an investment as coastal property in Arizona, too.
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Wait there's two DLC for AC2?
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Hahahaha. ACII story spoilers
I just got the Medici cape. florence is now my multi-person-fight training grounds
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Fuck this game is antastic
It's like what ACI promised me
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
I just found another reason to hate IGN. They actually just posted an article that tries to rank all of the Final Fantasy games. IGN is everything that is wrong with the video game "community".
Plus, Final Fantasy IX was nowhere near the top. Idiots.
Posts
Asuming this isn't a cash in
THOUGHTCRIME DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD
The problem here is that there is a lack of understanding among the general public as to the development cycle of a game.
Basically, as of about 3-4 months before the game is supposed to hit shelves (assuming you aren't going for a dev cycle where the game hits shelves long after it's actually done), you can't add new content to the base game without a very good reason. Every day you get closer to sending it off to the various companies for certification (Microsoft for Xbox, Sony for PS3, Nintendo for Wii/DS and your publisher for PC), the risk associated with adding new content to the on-disc product increases exponentially. Ideally, the product you have at 3 months out is almost identical to the product you plan to ship, since otherwise you will never properly test the game. It is ridiculous how complicated some of this software can get, and one seemingly minor change can have a knock-on effect that breaks something completely unrelated.
So, you set up a DLC team. Generally speaking this is about 50% people whose job is specifically to create DLC, and 50% people who are working on the base product that aren't fixing bugs. This team is budgeted and salaried in a separate fashion than the team working on the base game. It's never (well, rarely ever) an issue of 'let's see how much we can pull out of the base game to charge the customer for' but rather 'okay, we want to add this to the game, but it's too close to ship to do something this major. Let's work on it as DLC so we can ship the base game on time and then release this alongside it'. Though obviously I can only speak for BioWare, I assume this to be the case pretty much across the board.
The other side is - yes, it is also a way to make money. Because believe it or not, we like to make money for our hard work. Games are expensive to make, and since DLC doesn't require a new engine/programming optimization to create, it offers an excellent return on investment. It keeps people interested in your game past the initial purchase period. But the idea that this is a 'slippery slope' and someday soon you'll have to pay just to unlock key parts of the game is the kind of doomsday scenario that has yet to occur. If it becomes common to do just that, then I'll agree 100% - that's crap, and definitely on the 'moustache twirlingly evil' side of things. However, there's a two to four month period between when a game can't really have new content added and when it actually hits store shelves. This is why there's Day 1 DLC - it could just as easily be released four months after the fact, but if it's done, why not release it?
I have to say I liked Epic's method of dealing with this, which was to make add-on packs for the Unreal Tournament games free, as a thank-you to the people who bought their game.
It seems to have ruined my perspective on paying for additional content for games I already own.
FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BETTER
the game's two years old and they're still supporting it with content updates, each of which has added more to the game than the one that came before it
seriously, comparing tf2 now to tf2 at launch is like... they're different games entirely
i don't imagine a lot of people would want to experiment with radically changing game mechanics with a paying customer base unless it was an mmo
It's basically the difference between the PC version and the Xbox version.
i hope not
poor saps
It was.. alright. Nothing spectacular, but I had fun playing a Heavy.
I mean, rocket jumping people.
and this is coming from a dude that played it pretty regularly at release
is something new about HL2-Episode 3
I'm enjoying the game hugely, but I hate it when they act like they're doing fans a favour with DLC. Unless they mean it when they say they're giving it to the fans. But somehow, I think they mean selling.
I'll probably get it though, the game is ace.
It's not really evil; it's just a side effect of the fact that publishers will do what the market will bear.
I mean, if you can sell 70% of your customers on an extra $10 of video game that you had lying around anyway, why wouldn't you?
From the business side, how am I going to go into a quarterly conference call with investors and explain why my products can't push through a 20% price increase through DLC but my competitors can? I don't think there's a viable argument that you can make and keep your job with.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I would say that, unless you advertise your game as such to the consumers, selling a half-finished game and then charging them extra for the ending -is- kind of douchey. That is a lot different, however, from selling them a full game and saying 'hey here's some more stuff added onto the game, but you don't need it to finish the game'.
Reminds me of when my friend bought the $10 "Deus Ex: Special Limited Edition" which turned out to be a "you get to play 1/4 of the game"-type of limited.
http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=38921
Like if you do it the way it was done with Dragon Age (i.e. here's a bonus for buying a new copy) that's cool.
I did wonder why they didn't just include Shale into Dragon Age instead of make you jump through a few hoops. Maybe they were testing things?
From what I've heard, that's the case. It makes sense, considering that in a huge number of cases, all dialog with him is bugged by the end of the game.
Also, if you sell the game, the person buying it used doesn't get Shale.
Activison-Blizzard is almost as good an investment as coastal property in Arizona, too.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
It's like what ACI promised me
Two big ones on the way. Like a gig each in terms of hd space.
Sweet.
Yeah, it's shit they neglected to include in the initial release.