EA CEO: People Need DLC To Tide Them Over Between Releases

[Steven Bogos]

EA CEO: People Need DLC To Tide Them Over Between Releases

EA CEO Andrew Wilson believes that people lose interest in franchises if they don't have a steady stream of DLC.

EA CEO Andrew Wilson, speaking at the Credit Suisse 2013 Annual Technology Conference, gave a few opinions on the value of downloadable content. While he admits it has an inherent benefit in enhancing the publisher's bottom line, Wilson also believes that without DLC to fill the gap between sequels, gamers will loose interest in franchises.

"You would think if you play the game for five weeks and then put it away, by the time the next version come around, you would have an appetite that would have build up over the last 10, 11 months to play that game again," Wilson said. "And actually, the reverse is true. The closer we can get you in terms of engagement to the next launch, the greater propensity you have to purchase."

Basically, Wilson says that if people are still playing DLC for a game right up until when its sequel launches, they are more likely to just go ahead and buy said sequel. When you look at games like Battlefield, with its "season pass" premium model, this most certainly appears to be the case.

Even SimCity, which was a disaster at best, has still had a steady stream of DLC pumped into it, suggesting that development on the DLC started long before the game was actually released.

EA recently stated that it has halted all work on Battlefield 4 DLC [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130245-EA-Halts-Work-on-Battlefield-4-DLC] until the game's most glaring bugs have been fixed.

Source: Game Informer [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/12/04/ea-ceo-andrew-wilson-believes-current-title-dlc-important-to-future-game-sales.aspx]

Permalink

 

[Terminate421]

It's a bit pompous but I only see it really "true" in certain games like Call of Duty where more maps need to be added to freshen things up. Of course, properly made games can have endless replay value for years to come WITHOUT DLC.

This isn't to say DLC is bad at all.

 

[Drummodino]

No. I completely disagree with this. I'm not going to keep playing a game because you kept pumping out DLC for it. And I'm certainly not going to lose interest in a series I like because you're not trying to bleed me dry with paid DLC. That's more likely to push me away from the series in fact.

Now if he were talking about expansion packs, I could see some merit to that. I've gone back to games like Civ V, XCOM: EU and Skyrim because they released proper expansions. I did not continue to play them when they released more civs for Civ or the Slingshot DlC for XCOM etc.

Also:

Of course, properly made games can have endless replay value for years to come WITHOUT DLC.

This. I've played countless hours of completely DLC-free games for years after release (e.g. Pokemon).

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

This is a lot of what's wrong with gaming. The churning out of sequels, bridged together by smaller, monetised pieces?

That's categorically not true about DLCs being required to keep up interest. The Prince of Persia trilogy on last-last gen consoles is proof of that, succeeding without a single piece of extra content beyond what came on the disc. It also doesn't account for games which follow this endless-regurgitating model but still manage to suck.

Stop making third-person action adventures with mass-market appeal and make a new game people want to play.

 

[JenSeven]

No, we don't need something to do between releases. We have other releases.
The idea of DLC to fill up the gap between releases only works if consumers exclusively play only one game. This doesn't happen and never has.
If we get a full game and it has replay value or a high enough entertainment value we could keep ourselves occupied with it without DLC. However this rarely happens (it happened with me with Neverwinter Nights). The excuse that DLC is a service to keep people occupied, while the market is flooded with other good games, and sometimes charging huge smounts of money for them is ludicrous. The only reason is greed.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I suppose he might be onto something. After all, I love checking out free user-created content for PC games. Mods can really extend the replay factor of a game. That technically falls under DLC (though I'd wager he's not nearly as big a fan of those).

Then again, sometimes I end up deciding to hold off on sequels (or even refrain entirely) if the predecessor has all sorts of awesome mods. The same can be applied to official DLC. Why should I bother getting Batman: Arkham Origins if I'm still having loads of fun with the GOTY version of Arkham City I bought a year ago?

 

[Zhukov]

Given that yearly releases of full games are enough to make me lose interest in a franchise (Yes, Assassin's Creed, I am looking right at you), I don't think a stream of DLC is going to have the opposite effect.

Perhaps they have sales data to support this notion, but from a personal perspective, I'm not seeing it.

I kinda wish he'd just say, "We sell a ton of DLC because it makes a nice profit and I have shareholders to answer to. Fucking deal with it." Sure, tt'd be a PR disaster, but it would be rather refreshing, don't ya think?

 

[AgentLampshade]

Christ, if there's one thing that's pissing me off in the industry, it's DLC. Gone are the days of unlocking fun things by beating the game, replaced by a soulless "Achievement/Trophy Unlocked" pop-up and an ad for the DLC. Now, I'm not saying there isn't fun DLC out there, or that I've never indulged in buying Jetstream Sam for MGR[footnote]Which is now fucking FREE![/footnote] but as a practice, I feel that the majority of DLC simply makes the game feel unfinished. And I tend to not support unfinished products.

Also, EA this is not how to get voted for Best Company in America.

 

[Oskuro]

It's funny and sad at the same time. He seems to think that what EA needs (continued profit in between releases) is what the audience wants.

Maybe that's the problem, not only with EA, but with all big corporations: They project their needs unto their customers, to the point where they fail to understand that the costumer/seller relationship goes the other way around: costumers demand, sellers offer.

Sadly, young inexperienced people, their primary target, are, by virtue of their general inexperience, more gullible, and make these schemes possible... For now.

I suppose he might be onto something. After all, I love checking out free user-created content for PC games. Mods can really extend the replay factor of a game. That technically falls under DLC (though I'd wager he's not nearly as big a fan of those).

+1 to that. I say this often, but the term DLC, to me, has always felt as a rebranding of mods/addons, one meant to associate said addons with paying fee (free DLC being considered now a bonus).

I'm one of those "games are art" kind of people... And yet, games that revolve around monetization schemes in detriment of their actual content I can hardly see as art... And thus I refuse to support them.

 

[FalloutJack]

No, games need to be FULL AND COMPLETE with lots and lots of replay value and cool stuff IN THE GAME to keep us occupied while you make the NEXT full and complete game. Your ideals are greedy, back-stabbing, and ill-suited to the task. DLCs are not necessary when you make a game RIGHT.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

This is true to some degree. DLC can be a good way of making sure that people are still playing your game. But it has to be high quality DLC. IT has to be something big instead of just a skin pack and a few guns. Mass Effect 2 story DLC's did that perfectly. Something like The Lair of The Shadow Broker is always welcome in my book.

 

[Icehearted]

Zip - "Can you tell the difference between good and evil?"

Mok - "Try to realize there is no longer black or white, good or evil. We've evolved beyond that. We must all have our own personal view of right and wrong."

Zip - "But is what we are doing evil?"

Mok - "Of course not. Remember Zip, Evil spelled backward is Live, and we all want to do that."

 

[Pixelspeech]

The way I see it, if you keep people playing the same game for several months, then they are actually less excited. You've been playing the same thing for a long period of time, so fatigue is bound to set in at some point, right?

 

[Legion]

Well, it has been months as opposed to a couple of weeks, but the EA cycle of saying something good, followed by something idiotic carries on. Every time they tell people something that may lead them to think they have changed, they always seem to follow it up with something that teaches them otherwise.

If they want to be voted the best company in America as they claim, they may want to start learning about what their consumers actually want, as opposed to telling them.

The fact they manage to do so well in sales is not particularly relevant to their reputation. They may make more than other companies, but those with smaller profits manage to piss off a lot less people.

This is true to some degree. DLC can be a good way of making sure that people are still playing your game. But it has to be high quality DLC. IT has to be something big instead of just a skin pack and a few guns. Mass Effect 2 story DLC's did that perfectly. Something like The Lair of The Shadow Broker is always welcome in my book.

I agree that DLC such as that is good, but it isn't "needed" to keep people interested. People who loved Mass Effect 1 and 2 weren't going to suddenly go "meh" when Mass Effect 3 was released, purely because there hadn't been DLC for it. People following a story are going to want the next one to find out what happens next.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

To a degree, yes DLC can extend the life of some games. I don't feel that every piece of DLC is stuff that should have been included in the original game release, likewise it would be nice if the pub's would give their customer base some freebies here and there as a thank you for buying their product and all. Not every game needs DLC either. DLC on some levels replaced the PC expansion packs of old, because they're easier to deliver and add to the experience. But not everything needs to be DLC, especially alternate skins and the like. Some of that should be unlockable content added later on. But I will pay for storyline DLC for a game I enjoyed because I do want more.
Its a two way street, and if you abuse it well don't be surprised when it backfires on you. But I won't say that all DLC is blanket evil, nor will I say that extended development doesn't deserve a price tag as long as it isn't some crap like HORSE ARMOR.
In the end, we shouldn't dis a company for putting a price on post-release work that isn't a patch, or a bunch of new maps for multiplayer modes (but the pricetag for those maps should be relative to the content, I'm talking to you ACTIVISION!).
Price according to content and you'd definitely see profit, and toss us some freebies once in a while EA, but also realize if you make a good game, they will come back for the next one whether or not you release new content for the older version... and please if you're going to make a sequel do try to give us a reason to play that sequel beyond "ITS PART 2!!!" Give us something new, something exciting... and we'll come back for more.
GIVE US ANOTHER MUTANT LEAGUE!!!
XD

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

It has now been 0 days since a member of EA said something stupid and/or inflammatory

I'm glad I don't purchase EA games anymore, I prefer to buy my game in a single lump and perhaps go back for some more, not not run back and forth bleeding money.

Besides, between new releases (what few I get these days) I just work away on my backlog of games.

 

[Estarc]

Yeah, because no one had any interest in franchises back in the day of the PS and PS2 etc...

 

[shirkbot]

Others have already commented on the idiocy of the statement, as well as the partial truth of the statement when it comes to actual expansion of the original product like story DLC (or Mods), so here's my two cents:

1) What about all that sales data we've had from the last few decades prior to DLC that suggest that people who enjoy a series simply enjoy a series and thus pay attention to it? If it helps, we can use another industry: The Music Industry. Are you suggesting that because the artists I love don't put out a single every other month, I'm not going to buy their next album? (For perspective, music albums tend to have a 2 year development cycle, as opposed to EA's 1)

2) Nice way to blame the players, man. I had no idea that paid DLC was completely due to the fact that we are goldfish, and thus have to be periodically reminded that we enjoy the things we enjoy. This is beyond "Keeping the disk in the drive." This is verging on thinking that the second the game turns off, you have lost a customer.