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?
You don't feel bad for being spitefully ignorant and baselessly writing off a whole class of content? Okay then.
And I think Jubal Harshaw would have words with you. I mean I don't know why you just threw the word "Grok" out there, but everything you are saying is against the spirit of Stranger in a Strange Land. Maybe you just threw it out there to be cutesy, but I find the juxtaposition funny.
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?
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.
Amazing! I just came back from the future where I found this paragraph used in every single culture on Earth to illustrate the concept of "Wrong".
Maps take time to make. Designing to make them a good experience, not something you'd draw on the back of an envelope. Textures: objects, building, planning, testing... the list goes on.
Developers get paid wages while they do this. Publishers therefore charge for this content to pay the developers.
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.
Amazing! I just came back from the future where I found this paragraph used in every single culture on Earth to illustrate the concept of "Wrong".
Maps take time to make. Designing to make them a good experience, not something you'd draw on the back of an envelope. Textures: objects, building, planning, testing... the list goes on.
Developers get paid wages while they do this. Publishers therefore charge for this content to pay the developers.
Goose.
If a game come with 10 maps, and costs $60, then unless the design of the entire rest of the game costs nearly nothing I can't figure out how 5 maps can cost $15.
Especially when two of those were already made.
Even ignoring a game like MW2, which just takes the concept further than usual, it seems like the margins on things like multiplayer maps are a lot higher than on the game itself.
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?
What if its free DLC?
Also stop being a goose.
I don't count free DLC as DLC. I call those things 'patches.'
Stop being a goose? Wow, sorry if I was snarky, but I kind of get tired of repeating myself.
Call it a hunch, but I don't think you have much of an idea the amount of effort it takes to make a map this day and age.
Possibly. If it has, could you describe to me the myriad ways it's gotten harder since the days of UnrealED for UT? I mean, that one let you bring in your own custom models and textures. It was complicated enough that you could make an RTS game with it. Complicated enough that CliffyB hung out all day in IRC helping map makers figure out how to do things.
Or just ask yourself: why do map packs cost so much relative to the whole cost of the original game, when generally speaking original games already have a lot more maps built in? Since they cost so much more, is it just maybe possible they're overpriced?
You don't feel bad for being spitefully ignorant and baselessly writing off a whole class of content? Okay then.
Nope, since I a) didn't baselessly write anything off, I explained the basis of my feelings twice, and b) possess only whatever default amount of spite is necessary to dislike something.
I genuinely laughed out loud at the 'against the spirit of stranger in a strange land' bit. That was pretty funny.
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.
Amazing! I just came back from the future where I found this paragraph used in every single culture on Earth to illustrate the concept of "Wrong".
Maps take time to make. Designing to make them a good experience, not something you'd draw on the back of an envelope. Textures: objects, building, planning, testing... the list goes on.
Developers get paid wages while they do this. Publishers therefore charge for this content to pay the developers.
Goose.
If a game come with 10 maps, and costs $60, then unless the design of the entire rest of the game costs nearly nothing I can't figure out how 5 maps can cost $15.
Especially when two of those were already made.
Even ignoring a game like MW2, which just takes the concept further than usual, it seems like the margins on things like multiplayer maps are a lot higher than on the game itself.
Oh man, how dare they give a pack of maps a price based on the perceived value it adds to the product and how much they think their customers are willing to pay. Yes there's some mark up going on, you're selling a product.
Ego said this stuff is low-effort to release. MacDuffin is saying it's not, and there's a lot of costs associated to a DLC release he's not considering. There's a lot more going on then sitting a designer at a desk for week and then hitting an imaginary "Sell now!" button in a map editor when he's done.
Well sure. For one thing, you have to pick out the best models and textures out of the junk pile leftover from the design process. It's a tough life.
You don't know this, but everyone who develops games who reads this will probably laugh at you.
That's not how modern environment development goes down. Sounds like you're describing the Unreal era map editor, and assuming zero involvement from disciplines outside of the designer (which is rarely the case where I've worked)
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?
What if its free DLC?
Also stop being a goose.
I don't count free DLC as DLC. I call those things 'patches.'
Stop being a goose? Wow, sorry if I was snarky, but I kind of get tired of repeating myself.
Call it a hunch, but I don't think you have much of an idea the amount of effort it takes to make a map this day and age.
Possibly. If it has, could you describe to me the myriad ways it's gotten harder since the days of UnrealED for UT? I mean, that one let you bring in your own custom models and textures. It was complicated enough that you could make an RTS game with it. Complicated enough that CliffyB hung out all day in IRC helping map makers figure out how to do things.
Or just ask yourself: why do map packs cost so much relative to the whole cost of the original game, when generally speaking original games already have a lot more maps built in? Since they cost so much more, is it just maybe possible they're overpriced?
You don't feel bad for being spitefully ignorant and baselessly writing off a whole class of content? Okay then.
Nope, since I a) didn't baselessly write anything off, I explained the basis of my feelings twice, and b) possess only whatever default amount of spite is necessary to dislike something.
I genuinely laughed out loud at the 'against the spirit of stranger in a strange land' bit. That was pretty funny.
edit: mcguffin, see post by mcdermott. Duck!
Well Ive seen free "DLC" before, but call it what you will
Well sure. For one thing, you have to pick out the best models and textures out of the junk pile leftover from the design process. It's a tough life.
You don't know this, but everyone who develops games who reads this will probably laugh at you. That's not how modern map development goes down.
Well, I already asked you to explain how it had become hugely difficult as measured against UnrealED which already allowed use of custom textures, objects and models (of which plenty will be unused after a large game is designed) but you skipped answering. Would you like to take the opportunity to do so now, as you are evidently an expert?
Particularly, take time to explain the cost disparity between initial release maps and DLC maps, upon which everyone (but you, I assume) agrees with me.
Also Ego, there is a difference between free DLC and a patch. A patch is usually mandatory and fixes a glitch or a bug. Free DLC is optional, and is usually content related. Sure you have content patches in games like WOW, but you pay monthly for that also you can't decide to just not download them.
Also Ego, there is a difference between free DLC and a patch. A patch is usually mandatory and fixes a glitch or a bug. Free DLC is optional, and is usually content related. Sure you have content patches in games like WOW, but you pay monthly for that also you can't decide to just not download them.
In the past, all DLCs were patches. Then horse armor happened.
Also Ego, there is a difference between free DLC and a patch. A patch is usually mandatory and fixes a glitch or a bug. Free DLC is optional, and is usually content related. Sure you have content patches in games like WOW, but you pay monthly for that also you can't decide to just not download them.
Please don't be silly, because there are countless examples of patches that add content like maps, models, and textures (hell, even weapons) and aren't just bug fixes.
I'll just name a couple devs who have done this and do it regularly:
Also Ego, there is a difference between free DLC and a patch. A patch is usually mandatory and fixes a glitch or a bug. Free DLC is optional, and is usually content related. Sure you have content patches in games like WOW, but you pay monthly for that also you can't decide to just not download them.
Please don't be silly, because there are countless examples of patches that add content like maps, models, and textures (hell, even weapons) and aren't just bug fixes.
I'll just name a couple devs who have done this and do it regularly:
Valve
Blizzard
If you want more examples, you have only to ask.
did you even read what I said? I said there are examples of content patches, but there are also examples of free DLC.
Well sure. For one thing, you have to pick out the best models and textures out of the junk pile leftover from the design process. It's a tough life.
You don't know this, but everyone who develops games who reads this will probably laugh at you. That's not how modern map development goes down.
Well, I already asked you to explain how it had become hugely difficult as measured against UnrealED which already allowed use of custom textures, objects and models (of which plenty will be unused after a large game is designed) but you skipped answering. Would you like to take the opportunity to do so now, as you are evidently an expert?
Particularly, take time to explain the cost disparity between initial release maps and DLC maps, upon which everyone (but you, I assume) agrees with me.
Well, This is mostly from my own perspective from where I work, which I wont say, I'm trying to be anonymous about it so if we could all respect that, I'd appreciate it. Keep in mind this all depends on the nature of the DLC and the nature of the developer and publisher spear heading it.
First things first, you're making an assumption that their is unused art assets. If that's the cast, then that was a very poorly planned project. Unused art is the exception, not the rule. You shouldn't be wasting your budget on something you're not going to use.
Now, maps are the example? so I'm going to tackle this from my perspective of where I work...
- Designer designs the map. Usually, it will be all blocked in ugly and be completely about gameplay.
- There will be play tests and iteration to ensure it's fun and adjust things that aren't. Perhaps peer playtests, or with the help of a internal QA team, or combinations of therof.
- Artists will inevitably be involved to make the maps presentable. If they're working with existing environmental sets, it won't take long, but it's till an involved process. If they're making new environment sets, well, that entail more than a few artists going at it making shit, which is really involved (I doubt a developer would do this for a map pack, though if it was a downloadable single player mission, sure).
- Quality Assurance. This is usually a team of people hitting the DLC and submitting bugs until they're all fixed and the DLC is clean to go.
Some cost disparities you're not considering...
- Planning around what the DLC is actually going to be. Then will be more than a few individuals, and time is money after all. Dates, times, who will work on it, etcetera
- Marketing. Get the word out on your DLC. How much is it going to cost? Advertising? This is usually a few individuals as well.
- Certification. Depending on the nature of the DLC, a submitting to certification to a company like microsoft or sony is usually in order. Certing costs a lot of money, and if you fail cert, you got to spend more money. I'm not sure, but I think it's in the 10's of thousands range (It's one of those details that angers me and I like to forget about when told).
- Do you need to alter your UI to make the DLC accessible from the game menu? Maybe another programmer and artist involved in making that work.
- The vendor usually wants a cut of some sort (MS or Sony). Part of your asking price has to facilitate how much they're going to get versus how much you need.
- Their might be other administrative or licensing fees from that I'm not aware of. Not really my area of expertise.
Also Ego, there is a difference between free DLC and a patch. A patch is usually mandatory and fixes a glitch or a bug. Free DLC is optional, and is usually content related. Sure you have content patches in games like WOW, but you pay monthly for that also you can't decide to just not download them.
Please don't be silly, because there are countless examples of patches that add content like maps, models, and textures (hell, even weapons) and aren't just bug fixes.
I'll just name a couple devs who have done this and do it regularly:
Valve
Blizzard
If you want more examples, you have only to ask.
Difference between DLC and patch is simple: you can choose not to download DLC, and still (generally) participate online with players that have. You can't choose not to download a TF2 patch. You can choose not to download MW2 maps.
In the past, all DLCs were patches. Then horse armor happened.
Pretty fucking sure I had to choose to download (for free) new maps in Rainbow Six 3, and new maps/planes in Crimson Skies...so I think you're wrong there bub.
I have Oblivion GotY from steam but I haven't played it yet. I can't wait to see my awesome horse armor :-p
Side note: I never use horses in Oblivion because they control like shit and aren't useful for hilly terrain. Also, exploration in Oblivion is largely pointless.
Well sure. For one thing, you have to pick out the best models and textures out of the junk pile leftover from the design process. It's a tough life.
You don't know this, but everyone who develops games who reads this will probably laugh at you. That's not how modern map development goes down.
Well, I already asked you to explain how it had become hugely difficult as measured against UnrealED which already allowed use of custom textures, objects and models (of which plenty will be unused after a large game is designed) but you skipped answering. Would you like to take the opportunity to do so now, as you are evidently an expert?
Particularly, take time to explain the cost disparity between initial release maps and DLC maps, upon which everyone (but you, I assume) agrees with me.
Well, This is mostly from my own perspective from where I work, which I wont say, I'm trying to be anonymous about it so if we could all respect that, I'd appreciate it. Keep in mind this all depends on the nature of the DLC and the nature of the developer and publisher spear heading it.
First things first, you're making an assumption that their is unused art assets. If that's the cast, then that was a very poorly planned project. Unused art is the exception, not the rule.
Now, maps are the example? so I'm going to tackle this from my perspective of where I work...
- Designer designs the map. Usually, it will be all blocked in ugly and be completely about gameplay.
- There will be play tests and iteration to ensure it's fun and adjust things that aren't. Perhaps peer playtests, or with the help of a internal QA team, or combinations of therof.
- Artists will inevitably be involved to make the maps presentable. If they're working with existing environmental sets, it won't take long, but it's till an involved process. If they're making new environment sets, well, that entail more than a few artists going at it making shit, which is really involved (I doubt a developer would do this for a map pack, though if it was a downloadable single player mission, sure).
- Quality Assurance. This is usually a team of people hitting the DLC and submitting bugs until they're all fixed and the DLC is clean to go.
Some cost disparities you're not considering...
- Planning around what the DLC is actually going to be. Then will be more than a few individuals, and time is money after all. Dates, times, who will work on it, etcetera
- Marketing. Get the word out on your DLC. How much is it going to cost? Advertising? This is usually a few individuals as well.
- Certification. Depending on the nature of the DLC, a submitting to certification to a company like microsoft or sony is usually in order. Certing costs a lot of money, and if you fail cert, you got to spend more money. I'm not sure, but I think it's in the 10's of thousands range (It's one of those details that angers me and I like to forget about when told).
- Do you need to alter your UI to make the DLC accessible from the game menu? Maybe another programmer and artist involved in making that work.
- The vendor usually wants a cut of some sort (MS or Sony). Part of your asking price has to facilitate how much they're going to get versus how much you need.
- Their might be other administrative or licensing fees from that I'm not aware of. Not really my area of expertise.
1) Maybe early maps are simpler and take less assets and resources to produce. You want more maps, you've played the 10 on offer, maybe you're ready for bigger, harder etc. maps which take more resources.
2) Maybe the game took 50 people 3 years to produce and the cost the publisher would actually like to sell the game at to stop going bust - based on sales projections - would be $100, but they know the market won't stand that. So, they sell the game at $50, which means they are barely breaking even, or even losing money (lots of companies went bust last year...) and they hope to make more money on the DLC, so the margins may be slightly higher than the overall cost to produce them (but luckily they get 100% of the money rather than the game shop taking 60%, see previous posts (edit: actually they don't, I forgot about the certification and other overheads Matrias mentioned above)), but you are still getting value for money.
If you weren't: people would pretty soon point this out on the interwebs and sales would fall.
3) Not every customer will buy the DLC, so it has to be priced higher per unit to recoup the development costs.
It's a balancing act and some companies don't survive it, but God help anyone trying to make a living and working 16 hour days for weeks at the end of a project during crunch period because you don't like paying for DLC. o_O
3) Not every customer will buy the DLC, so it has to be priced higher per unit to recoup the development costs.
It's a balancing act and some companies don't survive it, but God help anyone trying to make a living and working 16 hour days for weeks at the end of a project during crunch period because you don't like paying for DLC.
The problem is the people unwilling to buy the DLC are paying full price for an incomplete game. Why should they get gypped? And if they buy used, because they don't feel they're getting value for the full price of the game, they get labeled a pirate. It's crap.
3) Not every customer will buy the DLC, so it has to be priced higher per unit to recoup the development costs.
It's a balancing act and some companies don't survive it, but God help anyone trying to make a living and working 16 hour days for weeks at the end of a project during crunch period because you don't like paying for DLC.
The problem is the people unwilling to buy the DLC are paying full price for an incomplete game. Why should they get gypped? And if they buy used, because they don't feel they're getting value for the full price of the game, they get labeled a pirate. It's crap.
Are you serious? DLC is typically extra content. Most games with DLC could stand alone without any of that DLC just fine and be considered complete games. Just because you have DLC doesn't mean the game was incomplete, that is just nonsense. Is my car incomplete because it doesn't have rims? or fuzzy dice? or a sweet after market exhaust?
3) Not every customer will buy the DLC, so it has to be priced higher per unit to recoup the development costs.
It's a balancing act and some companies don't survive it, but God help anyone trying to make a living and working 16 hour days for weeks at the end of a project during crunch period because you don't like paying for DLC.
The problem is the people unwilling to buy the DLC are paying full price for an incomplete game. Why should they get gypped? And if they buy used, because they don't feel they're getting value for the full price of the game, they get labeled a pirate. It's crap.
Yeah, I too hate it when a developer pulls extra content out of a vacuum and then charges people extra for it
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
It has already been explained: most DLC is not taken out. It is new levels they work on developing after the game has moved into testing/getting ready for the shelves. Sure, sometimes they might chop something off and then wring more money out of people, but that is usually the kind of product that is added as free DLC/a patch.
Explained by who? Developers? I have never, ever seen anything to contradict what I have said on here.
Okay, here is how it at least sometimes works, which I know, because I was a game developer and saw this first-hand:
Person Financing Game: "Okay, we want to give you a budget of $10M to make your game. Sound good?"
Team Making Game: "Sounds good. Here is our proposal of what the game will include."
PFG: "On top of this, we want some additional content released afterwards for download. We'll give you an extra quarter mil for this."
TMG: "All righty, we'll get on that."
And at that point, time and resource spent specifically on DLC are budgeted separately. The DLC in these situations is quite definitely something that would not exist had the guys holding the purse strings not specifically asked for it.
Now, at this point I suppose you could just say I'm lying. Hey, it's the internet, maybe I am. But if I'm not, then I've just disproved your (patently ridiculous) theory that every instance of DLC ever is content that would have been on the game disk if not for the unscrupulous machinations of greedy fat cats. A fair chunk of it is stuff that would not exist if not for the DLC model.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I have a friend who has a not that great gaming computer. It'll run most games, but not much at full resolution, max settings. But, he also fairly adamantly will not buy or run games if he can't play them at their highest performance level. Doesn't matter if he can get enough of the experience to be able to enjoy it, he can't get the BEST POSSIBLE experience. So he doesn't buy it.
This to me is the same as the no-DLC contingent here. If you can't have the entire game on the disk, with assurances that nothing else will be added, you won't buy it.
I think people here are forgetting the eternal truth 'no work is ever completed, only abandoned'. Sequels exist, expansions exist, dlc exists. They are all the same thing in principle, differing only in format.
And, as has been pointed out several times, there is also a clear divide here along the same lines of people who understand the game development process, and people who do not.
And, as has been pointed out several times, there is also a clear divide here along the same lines of people who understand the game development process, and people who do not.
To sum up, get over it, silly geese.
And there is definitely a certain sect of people who have been patronising and say "We know everything and you know nothing, now shut up because we're right and you can't prove us wrong, no matter what you say".
Get over yourself.
I'm starting to think that "I work in the industry" is code for "I think I know more than anybody else, and will prove it by making stuff up".
3) Not every customer will buy the DLC, so it has to be priced higher per unit to recoup the development costs.
It's a balancing act and some companies don't survive it, but God help anyone trying to make a living and working 16 hour days for weeks at the end of a project during crunch period because you don't like paying for DLC.
The problem is the people unwilling to buy the DLC are paying full price for an incomplete game. Why should they get gypped? And if they buy used, because they don't feel they're getting value for the full price of the game, they get labeled a pirate. It's crap.
Are you serious? DLC is typically extra content. Most games with DLC could stand alone without any of that DLC just fine and be considered complete games. Just because you have DLC doesn't mean the game was incomplete, that is just nonsense. Is my car incomplete because it doesn't have rims? or fuzzy dice? or a sweet after market exhaust?
In the case of games that sell content as DLC, like Mass Effect, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3, the new Castlevania, etc., it's more like your car is incomplete because it doesn't have the muffler. Or the radiator. Or the carburettor. Or whatever car part you like.
You wouldn't buy a car without those things, so why would you buy a game without them?
And, as has been pointed out several times, there is also a clear divide here along the same lines of people who understand the game development process, and people who do not.
To sum up, get over it, silly geese.
And there is definitely a certain sect of people who have been patronising and say "We know everything and you know nothing, now shut up because we're right and you can't prove us wrong, no matter what you say".
Get over yourself.
I'm starting to think that "I work in the industry" is code for "I think I know more than anybody else, and will prove it by making stuff up".
So you're wrong, but you don't want to be so you decide they're making it up?
Do you know how this whole argument thing works?
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
If a game come with 10 maps, and costs $60, then unless the design of the entire rest of the game costs nearly nothing I can't figure out how 5 maps can cost $15.
The short answer is that it almost certainly doesn't, but the long answer is "it's complicated".
A lot of the work on the main game is coding, possibly including creating the engine (though usually not these days). Even with an off-the-shelf engine, you need to tailor it to your game, write scripts for a lot of bits here and there, design the control and feel of the game, and so on. You then have a team of testers play-balancing things like weapons and basic mechanics, discovering things like how far a standard jump might be in a platform game, and all that stuff. This is stuff that won't really have to be done again if your expansion pack is just a bunch of new maps.
Then you have the artwork and level design, including creating textures and environment models that can be stamped down in a level, creating player and enemy models, creating audio, making scripting cut-scenes, writing voice scripts, and so on. This is all stuff that will have to be done again, to some extent, when making new maps or levels.
If it's a game with a custom engine and a lot of coding, and the new maps are basically just the stuff from the old maps rearranged (see: Gears of War), then the DLC is going to be pretty cheap in comparison. If it's a game with an OTS engine and little coding, but the DLC uses all custom textures and models and adds some new enemies and characters, then the per-map cost of the DLC could conceivably be on par with that of the original game.
Like I said, it's complicated.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If a game come with 10 maps, and costs $60, then unless the design of the entire rest of the game costs nearly nothing I can't figure out how 5 maps can cost $15.
The short answer is that it almost certainly doesn't, but the long answer is "it's complicated".
No it's not, it's greed.
PooPooKaKaBumBum on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
If a game come with 10 maps, and costs $60, then unless the design of the entire rest of the game costs nearly nothing I can't figure out how 5 maps can cost $15.
The short answer is that it almost certainly doesn't, but the long answer is "it's complicated".
No it's not, it's greed.
Those greedy businessmen. Trying to make money! I hate capitalism.
Communist.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
And, as has been pointed out several times, there is also a clear divide here along the same lines of people who understand the game development process, and people who do not.
To sum up, get over it, silly geese.
And there is definitely a certain sect of people who have been patronising and say "We know everything and you know nothing, now shut up because we're right and you can't prove us wrong, no matter what you say".
Get over yourself.
I'm starting to think that "I work in the industry" is code for "I think I know more than anybody else, and will prove it by making stuff up".
3) Not every customer will buy the DLC, so it has to be priced higher per unit to recoup the development costs.
It's a balancing act and some companies don't survive it, but God help anyone trying to make a living and working 16 hour days for weeks at the end of a project during crunch period because you don't like paying for DLC.
The problem is the people unwilling to buy the DLC are paying full price for an incomplete game. Why should they get gypped? And if they buy used, because they don't feel they're getting value for the full price of the game, they get labeled a pirate. It's crap.
Are you serious? DLC is typically extra content. Most games with DLC could stand alone without any of that DLC just fine and be considered complete games. Just because you have DLC doesn't mean the game was incomplete, that is just nonsense. Is my car incomplete because it doesn't have rims? or fuzzy dice? or a sweet after market exhaust?
In the case of games that sell content as DLC, like Mass Effect, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3, the new Castlevania, etc., it's more like your car is incomplete because it doesn't have the muffler. Or the radiator. Or the carburettor. Or whatever car part you like.
You wouldn't buy a car without those things, so why would you buy a game without them?
so fallout3 without the DLC could not have stood alone as a game? is that what you are saying?
In the case of games that sell content as DLC, like Mass Effect, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3, the new Castlevania, etc., it's more like your car is incomplete because it doesn't have the muffler. Or the radiator. Or the carburettor. Or whatever car part you like.
You wouldn't buy a car without those things, so why would you buy a game without them?
Wait...wait...
So, if the DLC for Mass Effect did not exist, you wouldn't buy the game? You'd be all, "man, this game is missing X, so it must be garbage!" Where X is the DLC (I don't have Mass Effect 1 or 2, so no idea what it was).
I can't think of a single example of a game that simply would not stand on its own if the DLC didn't exist. Sure, gamers are all bitching because, "man, why couldn't they just include the DLC in the game? Shit's all incomplete and shit!" And I get that. But if you could erase the DLC from their minds, take the DLC off the market, make the DLC never happen...those same gamers would think it was a perfectly decent (and "complete") game and play it happily.
I'm sure you can come up with a couple multiplayer-heavy games where this isn't the case, where the DLC is necessary for the enjoyment of the core game. But outside of games released at lower price points, or games that are themselves DLC (and which are less than normal retail releases), I'm coming up blank.
Your car analogy falls apart, because most of this DLC is not the muffler, or the radiator. It's not necessary for the full function and enjoyment of the core product. It's power windows, at best.
Well, that or car analogies are stupid. Either way. But fuck it, I use them too sometimes.
In the case of games that sell content as DLC, like Mass Effect, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3, the new Castlevania, etc., it's more like your car is incomplete because it doesn't have the muffler. Or the radiator. Or the carburettor. Or whatever car part you like.
You wouldn't buy a car without those things, so why would you buy a game without them?
Wait...wait...
So, if the DLC for Mass Effect did not exist, you wouldn't buy the game? You'd be all, "man, this game is missing X, so it must be garbage!" Where X is the DLC (I don't have Mass Effect 1 or 2, so no idea what it was).
I can't think of a single example of a game that simply would not stand on its own if the DLC didn't exist. Sure, gamers are all bitching because, "man, why couldn't they just include the DLC in the game? Shit's all incomplete and shit!" And I get that. But if you could erase the DLC from their minds, take the DLC off the market, make the DLC never happen...those same gamers would think it was a perfectly decent (and "complete") game and play it happily.
I'm sure you can come up with a couple multiplayer-heavy games where this isn't the case, where the DLC is necessary for the enjoyment of the core game. But outside of games released at lower price points, or games that are themselves DLC (and which are less than normal retail releases), I'm coming up blank.
Your car analogy falls apart, because most of this DLC is not the muffler, or the radiator. It's not necessary for the full function and enjoyment of the core product. It's power windows, at best.
Well, that or car analogies are stupid. Either way. But fuck it, I use them too sometimes.
I agree about the games standing alone. I played Fallout 3 and never bought any DLC and I thought it was a good game. I never once thought to myself it was incomplete in some way. When the DLC came out I was already done with the game and didn't feel like getting back into it.
CasedOut on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
And, as has been pointed out several times, there is also a clear divide here along the same lines of people who understand the game development process, and people who do not.
To sum up, get over it, silly geese.
And there is definitely a certain sect of people who have been patronising and say "We know everything and you know nothing, now shut up because we're right and you can't prove us wrong, no matter what you say".
Get over yourself.
I'm starting to think that "I work in the industry" is code for "I think I know more than anybody else, and will prove it by making stuff up".
3) Not every customer will buy the DLC, so it has to be priced higher per unit to recoup the development costs.
It's a balancing act and some companies don't survive it, but God help anyone trying to make a living and working 16 hour days for weeks at the end of a project during crunch period because you don't like paying for DLC.
The problem is the people unwilling to buy the DLC are paying full price for an incomplete game. Why should they get gypped? And if they buy used, because they don't feel they're getting value for the full price of the game, they get labeled a pirate. It's crap.
Are you serious? DLC is typically extra content. Most games with DLC could stand alone without any of that DLC just fine and be considered complete games. Just because you have DLC doesn't mean the game was incomplete, that is just nonsense. Is my car incomplete because it doesn't have rims? or fuzzy dice? or a sweet after market exhaust?
In the case of games that sell content as DLC, like Mass Effect, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3, the new Castlevania, etc., it's more like your car is incomplete because it doesn't have the muffler. Or the radiator. Or the carburettor. Or whatever car part you like.
You wouldn't buy a car without those things, so why would you buy a game without them?
What part of the game is operating suboptimally b/c you didn't DLC it up? It really is the spoiler, the sweet rims, or even just the v8 vs the v6.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I'm starting to think that "I work in the industry" is code for "I think I know more than anybody else, and will prove it by making stuff up".
Dude, "you're all lying liars!" is not a very good debating tactic. Unless the debating topic is "Are you a douche?" and your position is "I am such a douche."
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
If a game come with 10 maps, and costs $60, then unless the design of the entire rest of the game costs nearly nothing I can't figure out how 5 maps can cost $15.
The short answer is that it almost certainly doesn't, but the long answer is "it's complicated".
No it's not, it's greed.
At this point you have established that you are either a troll or...
Nope, that's pretty much the only option.
So knock it off.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
You don't feel bad for being spitefully ignorant and baselessly writing off a whole class of content? Okay then.
And I think Jubal Harshaw would have words with you. I mean I don't know why you just threw the word "Grok" out there, but everything you are saying is against the spirit of Stranger in a Strange Land. Maybe you just threw it out there to be cutesy, but I find the juxtaposition funny.
What if its free DLC?
Also stop being a goose.
Amazing! I just came back from the future where I found this paragraph used in every single culture on Earth to illustrate the concept of "Wrong".
Maps take time to make. Designing to make them a good experience, not something you'd draw on the back of an envelope. Textures: objects, building, planning, testing... the list goes on.
Developers get paid wages while they do this. Publishers therefore charge for this content to pay the developers.
Goose.
If a game come with 10 maps, and costs $60, then unless the design of the entire rest of the game costs nearly nothing I can't figure out how 5 maps can cost $15.
Especially when two of those were already made.
Even ignoring a game like MW2, which just takes the concept further than usual, it seems like the margins on things like multiplayer maps are a lot higher than on the game itself.
I don't count free DLC as DLC. I call those things 'patches.'
Stop being a goose? Wow, sorry if I was snarky, but I kind of get tired of repeating myself.
Possibly. If it has, could you describe to me the myriad ways it's gotten harder since the days of UnrealED for UT? I mean, that one let you bring in your own custom models and textures. It was complicated enough that you could make an RTS game with it. Complicated enough that CliffyB hung out all day in IRC helping map makers figure out how to do things.
Or just ask yourself: why do map packs cost so much relative to the whole cost of the original game, when generally speaking original games already have a lot more maps built in? Since they cost so much more, is it just maybe possible they're overpriced?
Nope, since I a) didn't baselessly write anything off, I explained the basis of my feelings twice, and b) possess only whatever default amount of spite is necessary to dislike something.
I genuinely laughed out loud at the 'against the spirit of stranger in a strange land' bit. That was pretty funny.
edit: mcguffin, see post by mcdermott. Duck!
Ego said this stuff is low-effort to release. MacDuffin is saying it's not, and there's a lot of costs associated to a DLC release he's not considering. There's a lot more going on then sitting a designer at a desk for week and then hitting an imaginary "Sell now!" button in a map editor when he's done.
That's not how modern environment development goes down. Sounds like you're describing the Unreal era map editor, and assuming zero involvement from disciplines outside of the designer (which is rarely the case where I've worked)
Well Ive seen free "DLC" before, but call it what you will
Well, I already asked you to explain how it had become hugely difficult as measured against UnrealED which already allowed use of custom textures, objects and models (of which plenty will be unused after a large game is designed) but you skipped answering. Would you like to take the opportunity to do so now, as you are evidently an expert?
Particularly, take time to explain the cost disparity between initial release maps and DLC maps, upon which everyone (but you, I assume) agrees with me.
In the past, all DLCs were patches. Then horse armor happened.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Please don't be silly, because there are countless examples of patches that add content like maps, models, and textures (hell, even weapons) and aren't just bug fixes.
I'll just name a couple devs who have done this and do it regularly:
Valve
Blizzard
If you want more examples, you have only to ask.
did you even read what I said? I said there are examples of content patches, but there are also examples of free DLC.
Now, maps are the example? so I'm going to tackle this from my perspective of where I work...
- Designer designs the map. Usually, it will be all blocked in ugly and be completely about gameplay.
- There will be play tests and iteration to ensure it's fun and adjust things that aren't. Perhaps peer playtests, or with the help of a internal QA team, or combinations of therof.
- Artists will inevitably be involved to make the maps presentable. If they're working with existing environmental sets, it won't take long, but it's till an involved process. If they're making new environment sets, well, that entail more than a few artists going at it making shit, which is really involved (I doubt a developer would do this for a map pack, though if it was a downloadable single player mission, sure).
- Quality Assurance. This is usually a team of people hitting the DLC and submitting bugs until they're all fixed and the DLC is clean to go.
Some cost disparities you're not considering...
- Planning around what the DLC is actually going to be. Then will be more than a few individuals, and time is money after all. Dates, times, who will work on it, etcetera
- Marketing. Get the word out on your DLC. How much is it going to cost? Advertising? This is usually a few individuals as well.
- Certification. Depending on the nature of the DLC, a submitting to certification to a company like microsoft or sony is usually in order. Certing costs a lot of money, and if you fail cert, you got to spend more money. I'm not sure, but I think it's in the 10's of thousands range (It's one of those details that angers me and I like to forget about when told).
- Do you need to alter your UI to make the DLC accessible from the game menu? Maybe another programmer and artist involved in making that work.
- The vendor usually wants a cut of some sort (MS or Sony). Part of your asking price has to facilitate how much they're going to get versus how much you need.
- Their might be other administrative or licensing fees from that I'm not aware of. Not really my area of expertise.
Difference between DLC and patch is simple: you can choose not to download DLC, and still (generally) participate online with players that have. You can't choose not to download a TF2 patch. You can choose not to download MW2 maps.
Pretty fucking sure I had to choose to download (for free) new maps in Rainbow Six 3, and new maps/planes in Crimson Skies...so I think you're wrong there bub.
Yeah well... it was a terrible decision.
I have Oblivion GotY from steam but I haven't played it yet. I can't wait to see my awesome horse armor :-p
Side note: I never use horses in Oblivion because they control like shit and aren't useful for hilly terrain. Also, exploration in Oblivion is largely pointless.
@Ego:
What he said, PLUS:
1) Maybe early maps are simpler and take less assets and resources to produce. You want more maps, you've played the 10 on offer, maybe you're ready for bigger, harder etc. maps which take more resources.
2) Maybe the game took 50 people 3 years to produce and the cost the publisher would actually like to sell the game at to stop going bust - based on sales projections - would be $100, but they know the market won't stand that. So, they sell the game at $50, which means they are barely breaking even, or even losing money (lots of companies went bust last year...) and they hope to make more money on the DLC, so the margins may be slightly higher than the overall cost to produce them (but luckily they get 100% of the money rather than the game shop taking 60%, see previous posts (edit: actually they don't, I forgot about the certification and other overheads Matrias mentioned above)), but you are still getting value for money.
If you weren't: people would pretty soon point this out on the interwebs and sales would fall.
3) Not every customer will buy the DLC, so it has to be priced higher per unit to recoup the development costs.
It's a balancing act and some companies don't survive it, but God help anyone trying to make a living and working 16 hour days for weeks at the end of a project during crunch period because you don't like paying for DLC. o_O
Meh.
The problem is the people unwilling to buy the DLC are paying full price for an incomplete game. Why should they get gypped? And if they buy used, because they don't feel they're getting value for the full price of the game, they get labeled a pirate. It's crap.
Are you serious? DLC is typically extra content. Most games with DLC could stand alone without any of that DLC just fine and be considered complete games. Just because you have DLC doesn't mean the game was incomplete, that is just nonsense. Is my car incomplete because it doesn't have rims? or fuzzy dice? or a sweet after market exhaust?
Yeah, I too hate it when a developer pulls extra content out of a vacuum and then charges people extra for it
Okay, here is how it at least sometimes works, which I know, because I was a game developer and saw this first-hand:
Person Financing Game: "Okay, we want to give you a budget of $10M to make your game. Sound good?"
Team Making Game: "Sounds good. Here is our proposal of what the game will include."
PFG: "On top of this, we want some additional content released afterwards for download. We'll give you an extra quarter mil for this."
TMG: "All righty, we'll get on that."
And at that point, time and resource spent specifically on DLC are budgeted separately. The DLC in these situations is quite definitely something that would not exist had the guys holding the purse strings not specifically asked for it.
Now, at this point I suppose you could just say I'm lying. Hey, it's the internet, maybe I am. But if I'm not, then I've just disproved your (patently ridiculous) theory that every instance of DLC ever is content that would have been on the game disk if not for the unscrupulous machinations of greedy fat cats. A fair chunk of it is stuff that would not exist if not for the DLC model.
This to me is the same as the no-DLC contingent here. If you can't have the entire game on the disk, with assurances that nothing else will be added, you won't buy it.
I think people here are forgetting the eternal truth 'no work is ever completed, only abandoned'. Sequels exist, expansions exist, dlc exists. They are all the same thing in principle, differing only in format.
And, as has been pointed out several times, there is also a clear divide here along the same lines of people who understand the game development process, and people who do not.
To sum up, get over it, silly geese.
And there is definitely a certain sect of people who have been patronising and say "We know everything and you know nothing, now shut up because we're right and you can't prove us wrong, no matter what you say".
Get over yourself.
I'm starting to think that "I work in the industry" is code for "I think I know more than anybody else, and will prove it by making stuff up".
In the case of games that sell content as DLC, like Mass Effect, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3, the new Castlevania, etc., it's more like your car is incomplete because it doesn't have the muffler. Or the radiator. Or the carburettor. Or whatever car part you like.
You wouldn't buy a car without those things, so why would you buy a game without them?
So you're wrong, but you don't want to be so you decide they're making it up?
Do you know how this whole argument thing works?
The short answer is that it almost certainly doesn't, but the long answer is "it's complicated".
A lot of the work on the main game is coding, possibly including creating the engine (though usually not these days). Even with an off-the-shelf engine, you need to tailor it to your game, write scripts for a lot of bits here and there, design the control and feel of the game, and so on. You then have a team of testers play-balancing things like weapons and basic mechanics, discovering things like how far a standard jump might be in a platform game, and all that stuff. This is stuff that won't really have to be done again if your expansion pack is just a bunch of new maps.
Then you have the artwork and level design, including creating textures and environment models that can be stamped down in a level, creating player and enemy models, creating audio, making scripting cut-scenes, writing voice scripts, and so on. This is all stuff that will have to be done again, to some extent, when making new maps or levels.
If it's a game with a custom engine and a lot of coding, and the new maps are basically just the stuff from the old maps rearranged (see: Gears of War), then the DLC is going to be pretty cheap in comparison. If it's a game with an OTS engine and little coding, but the DLC uses all custom textures and models and adds some new enemies and characters, then the per-map cost of the DLC could conceivably be on par with that of the original game.
Like I said, it's complicated.
Yes, I make my point, and you agree with me. :P
No it's not, it's greed.
Those greedy businessmen. Trying to make money! I hate capitalism.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
so fallout3 without the DLC could not have stood alone as a game? is that what you are saying?
Wait...wait...
So, if the DLC for Mass Effect did not exist, you wouldn't buy the game? You'd be all, "man, this game is missing X, so it must be garbage!" Where X is the DLC (I don't have Mass Effect 1 or 2, so no idea what it was).
I can't think of a single example of a game that simply would not stand on its own if the DLC didn't exist. Sure, gamers are all bitching because, "man, why couldn't they just include the DLC in the game? Shit's all incomplete and shit!" And I get that. But if you could erase the DLC from their minds, take the DLC off the market, make the DLC never happen...those same gamers would think it was a perfectly decent (and "complete") game and play it happily.
I'm sure you can come up with a couple multiplayer-heavy games where this isn't the case, where the DLC is necessary for the enjoyment of the core game. But outside of games released at lower price points, or games that are themselves DLC (and which are less than normal retail releases), I'm coming up blank.
Your car analogy falls apart, because most of this DLC is not the muffler, or the radiator. It's not necessary for the full function and enjoyment of the core product. It's power windows, at best.
this is a manual
I agree about the games standing alone. I played Fallout 3 and never bought any DLC and I thought it was a good game. I never once thought to myself it was incomplete in some way. When the DLC came out I was already done with the game and didn't feel like getting back into it.
What part of the game is operating suboptimally b/c you didn't DLC it up? It really is the spoiler, the sweet rims, or even just the v8 vs the v6.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Dude, "you're all lying liars!" is not a very good debating tactic. Unless the debating topic is "Are you a douche?" and your position is "I am such a douche."
At this point you have established that you are either a troll or...
Nope, that's pretty much the only option.
So knock it off.