Bleszinski: On-Disk DLC an "Unfortunate Reality"

[Simonoly]

I'm slightly confused about some of the information in this article. So apparently there's three or four months where the game is basically done and they work on dlc content. Hasn't the game been sent to Microsoft/Sony during this period for testing etc? Surely that means that all work on the vanilla product has finished? I was under the impression that when Microsoft or Sony give the game the okay it can no longer be modified. So how does the disc-locked dlc being developed during this period of testing appear on the disc? Surely they'd have to send it back to Microsoft/Sony because the content of the product had changed after initial testing.

The explanation given in this article seems only applicable to dlc distributed via digital download and not anything locked-away on disc. Although I suppose it is also applicable to dlc which is partially on-disc like the 'From Ashes' dlc in ME3. But still, either I've not had enough sleep or something doesn't add up here.

 

[evilneko]

Ten bucks for such a tiny extra? A few maps and skins? Geeze, that'd be price gouging even if it weren't on the disc! Fallout 3/NV's DLCs were also ten bucks each.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Ten bucks for such a tiny extra? A few maps and skins? Geeze, that'd be price gouging even if it weren't on the disc! Fallout 3/NV's DLCs were also ten bucks each.

DLC has a habit of being disproportionately priced. For 10$, you should theoretically get something that has about 1/6th of the content in the original game. It never works out like that.

 

[Dryk]

The way I see it, not all DLC needs to have an on disk content. Dlc that intergrates into the core game, eg characters in ME2/3, need to have on disk content so that they 'work' within the game, that would be the compatibility that Bleszinski mentioned above.

You only have those compatibility issues if you design the engine so that it will have those compatibility issues... which just happens to be cheaper and easier. If companies are going to keep asking us for 1/5th of the money for 1/60th of the content, maybe they should pony up some of that extra cash and build a more modular game next time.

 

[Dys]

Why would it go to waste? If it's finished in time for the release then they should just include it in the original game instead of charging extra? As 4 "The Chart" They somehow found a way to finance post release DLC BEFORE On-disk DLC. Have they just gotten worse at managing their finances? Not exactly winning any points with that argument.

Actu... know what? Fuck it. I let someone else with less sleep deprivation answer this. Il just say that you seem to be missing a key fact. The game isnt released when the developers finish it. Its released some time after. I believe its in that chart you mentioned. That "Day 1" DLC is partially on the disk, but they couldnt finish it in time to send the game in for review or what the fuck ever happens between the time the game is finish and the actual release of the game to the public.

Really, I think that chart you mentioned should have actually answered your question better than I could.

Spoiler: In fact, here it is.

*Edit*

Looks like someone already did...

Your point manages to completely miss the complaint with DLC. When consumers pay full price for a game, they expect the best damn game that can be done under budget[footnote]If it can be bankrolled before any extra $$ come in from sales it doesn't really have any right to be sold as DLC![/footnote]. What department does what, when is irrelevant. If there's something cool that can be budgeted and realistically included in the game, it should be. It's not unreasonable to expect something you buy to be the best it can be, in fact it's unreasonable to expect people to buy something that is implied as being the best that could be made at the time and then immediately slap them with a fee for a slightly better experience that could have been included.

Yes game developers sometimes struggle with AAA games etc etc. But when the current trend is to be spending hugely significant amounts of money on marketing, this kind of atrocious marketing is simply unacceptable.

 

[The Wooster]

Also, thanks for trivializing the issue with the "car analogy" comment Mr. Carter...

You're welcome.

 

[Ziggy]

Why would it go to waste? If it's finished in time for the release then they should just include it in the original game instead of charging extra? As 4 "The Chart" They somehow found a way to finance post release DLC BEFORE On-disk DLC. Have they just gotten worse at managing their finances? Not exactly winning any points with that argument.

When a game is to be released on consoles it is sent a MS or sony and they inspect the game this can take a long while depending if its multi-platform exclusive.
if its not ready it can be delayed for a few months for the devs to fix it.
When it is sent to microsoft or sony, It's done,finite,over,feature complete they may not add anything else not even remove stuff.
In that time its either,Sequel time Or dlc time.
And a skin pack can be done in a few days by the art team who havent got anything to work on.

So it's the consoles fault that there are day-1 DLC?

 

[getoffmycloud]

I'm slightly confused about some of the information in this article. So apparently there's three or four months where the game is basically done and they work on dlc content. Hasn't the game been sent to Microsoft/Sony during this period for testing etc? Surely that means that all work on the vanilla product has finished? I was under the impression that when Microsoft or Sony give the game the okay it can no longer be modified. So how does the disc-locked dlc being developed during this period of testing appear on the disc? Surely they'd have to send it back to Microsoft/Sony because the content of the product had changed after initial testing.

The explanation given in this article seems only applicable to dlc distributed via digital download and not anything locked-away on disc. Although I suppose it is also applicable to dlc which is partially on-disc like the 'From Ashes' dlc in ME3. But still, either I've not had enough sleep or something doesn't add up here.

Basically the DLC is being developed alongside the main game but the developers know they can't finish it by the time the game has to go off to microsoft and sony so they just shove whatever is already done onto the disk and the put the rest up for download on release it keeps the download time down.

 

[Imbechile]

Bleszinski: On-Disk DLC an "Unfortunate Reality"

A reality gamers cooked themselves. If they stood against it from the begining, then it wouldn't be a "reality".
That's why it's hard for me to blame publishers for shit like this, when it's the fault of gamers who let themselves be milked.

 

[Treblaine]

I for one welcome our insect overlords digital download games.

Nah seriously, I really would love for us to break out of the disc and retail model and think Blezingsky is right that it would eliminate on-disc (or in download) DLC

 

[carpathic]

The issue is also about transparency and cost. Cliffy and company tried to hide that on-disc DLC. Companies are still trying to hide it. I wouldn't be surprised if Blezinski's next game tried to hide it. If it's such a necessity (which I do not believe it to be), why all the lying and hiding and game playing?

Because gamers lose their collective shit when the data miners get hold of their copies and find the on disc-dlc. Better to just not say anything and let the fans start the inevitable shit-storm after the game is released. They're not really obligated to tell us anything about the game, and when it comes to marketing why should they deliberately release information that would effect sales?

"Because it's the right thing to do" is not the correct answer.

Plus, the game companies can count on a certain percentage of self-satisfied gamers and journalists who will call anyone who voices issues with predatory practices and/or substandard story telling as "entitled". These people will usually us use some sort of call to the free market to justify their views and then add in sarcasm, or just being nasty.

 

[Frostbyte666]

I believe its a simple matter of if its on the disc it should be part of the original game and forcing you to buy to unlock this content is morally bankrupt. If however the content is not on the dvd then it would in fact be a dlc package that you would spend extra for. However that raises the issue of day 1 dlc, whether it should actually be on the disc in the 1st place or not.

I also find it frankly horrifying that so many developer are trying to force people into digital distribution only. The thing is I like have a physical copy of what I've bought, it means I have a collection and if something horrible happens to my hard drive it is a lot easier to reinstall rather than having to redownload a game you've purchased. Also for all their bleating of digital distribution I have noticed that the software does not cost any less than if I picked up the physical disc instead.

 

[WanderingFool]

Why would it go to waste? If it's finished in time for the release then they should just include it in the original game instead of charging extra? As 4 "The Chart" They somehow found a way to finance post release DLC BEFORE On-disk DLC. Have they just gotten worse at managing their finances? Not exactly winning any points with that argument.

Actu... know what? Fuck it. I let someone else with less sleep deprivation answer this. Il just say that you seem to be missing a key fact. The game isnt released when the developers finish it. Its released some time after. I believe its in that chart you mentioned. That "Day 1" DLC is partially on the disk, but they couldnt finish it in time to send the game in for review or what the fuck ever happens between the time the game is finish and the actual release of the game to the public.

Really, I think that chart you mentioned should have actually answered your question better than I could.

Spoiler: In fact, here it is.

*Edit*

Looks like someone already did...

Your point manages to completely miss the complaint with DLC. When consumers pay full price for a game, they expect the best damn game that can be done under budget[footnote]If it can be bankrolled before any extra $$ come in from sales it doesn't really have any right to be sold as DLC![/footnote]. What department does what, when is irrelevant. If there's something cool that can be budgeted and realistically included in the game, it should be. It's not unreasonable to expect something you buy to be the best it can be, in fact it's unreasonable to expect people to buy something that is implied as being the best that could be made at the time and then immediately slap them with a fee for a slightly better experience that could have been included.

Yes game developers sometimes struggle with AAA games etc etc. But when the current trend is to be spending hugely significant amounts of money on marketing, this kind of atrocious marketing is simply unacceptable.

Im not going to bother trying to responde to this, as it seems like an exercise in futility. Suffice to say, you and I are not game developers and as such, we do not have any firsthand knowledge on this subject. We only have an outside view on the whole ordeal, and I doubt that puts us in a position to dictate to a developer how to do their job.

 

[GiantRaven]

The problem I have is buying a disk and then being told that my money only counts for a certain amount of whats actually on it. It just feels completely ridiculous to me.

 

[burningdragoon]

There really isn't a way to make on-disc or day-one DLC sound "good" even if there are legitimate reasons for it sometimes. Whatareyougonnado though?

Also, thanks for trivializing the issue with the "car analogy" comment Mr. Carter...

You're welcome.

Ha, and thank you for being the wonderfully snarky bastard that you are.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because gamers lose their collective shit when the data miners get hold of their copies and find the on disc-dlc.

And I'm sure the whole "being lied to and deceived" part has nothing to do with it.

The way I see it, not all DLC needs to have an on disk content. Dlc that intergrates into the core game, eg characters in ME2/3, need to have on disk content so that they 'work' within the game, that would be the compatibility that Bleszinski mentioned above.

I seriously doubt even that is necessary.

 

[Baresark]

I guess the best thing would be to not include it on your disc. If you have programmers who cannot figure out a workaround for compatibility, you need better programmers. The general public feels that if you have it on the disc, it should be in the game. I agree, it means it was content that was added before the discs were even made. Bleszinski's issue is that people have a problem with it. The reality of business is that if you make a product that people don't like, they are gonna ***** about it. If you make a product and then tell people they are not allowed to use some parts of it, then you are doing a shitty job. You don't buy a car and then the car company just says you aren't allowed to use the power steering your car came with. Trust me, that was added way before the car was made, not in an after thought. Just like the on disc DLC is made before the disc is printed.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Hey, Cliff! Instead of saying "it's an unfortunate reality," maybe you should... oh, I don't know... get your company to not do it? It's like... like car manufacturers saying "oh yeah, it'll pollute the atmosphere" of fuel engines despite having the resources to do away with them by switching to electric and cutting costs and generally making everybody much happier. You can't hang your head in shame and say "there's nothing I can do" when a) the thing you''re hanging your head for is of your own devices, and b) there's a fucking shopping list of things you can right well do.