Bleszinski: On-Disk DLC an "Unfortunate Reality"

[AnotherAvatar]

"And often for compatibility issues, [on] day one, some of that content does need to be on-disc."

Lulwhat?

This is total bullshit.

 

[Johnson McGee]

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.

I would go further and say that DLC should have more than 1/6 of the content for 1/6 of the price since much of the core development like textures, game engine, etc. included in the price of the main game can be re-used for the DLC.

 

[subtlefuge]

I will give the Gears team some credit. The free map pack they released for Gears 3 balances out the on-disk DLC, but they should still try harder.

 

[Weaver]

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.

I would go further and say that DLC should have more than 1/6 of the content for 1/6 of the price since much of the core development like textures, game engine, etc. included in the price of the main game can be re-used for the DLC.

I agree. Personally, I'm still in tune with the old expansion pack model. Remember how much content we got for $30 in Diablo 2: Lord of Destruciton, or Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal? Hell, even Oblivion's the shivering isles expansion was absolutely huge at around 35 hours for about $30 bucks. And now dev's have the audacity to charge people $10 whole dollars for a 30 minute mission and a shitty squadmate?

 

[hermes]

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.

Then again, people are not fans of 1GB patch updates, which would be the solution for this situation.

I think people here are confusing two different situations: day 1 DLC and on disk DLC. Bleszinski's answer seems to address day 1 DLC more... Yes, there are DLC that is developed by the team during the certification process, the "going gold" time or even during the last push (not all the team is under the milestone pressure at the same time). Some DLC is finished in those weeks and by releasing it as early as possible they make sure more people will buy it (same principle most movie merchandise is released around the time the movie premieres)

On Disk DLC exists mostly for compatibility issues. Gamers that doesn't have the DLC need to be able to interact online with players that do. In the case of maps, interaction is minimal, but in the example of fighting games people will want to use the new characters regardless of whether the opponent has them. In the case of coop games, the situation is similar (I wonder how gearbox will handle the Mechromancer DLC in Borderlands). The alternative (a more "modular" game) requires people to download "compatibility packs" or game updates that can be close to 1 or 2 GBs. Those that experience the Mortal Kombat debacle know how wrong that can go. Under that light, on disk dlc presents some compelling arguments. The reason people are upset is because of the Capcom answer regarding SFxT, which is not only false (on disk dlc is not the same as downloadable) but unfortunate since the characters are fully functional and have been seen in online matches... This could have been easily solved by Capcom if they included all models and textures on the disk, but leave some vital data (like animations, inputs and stats) out of the disk and release it in time with the DLC as a patch, which could amount for only a few MB. At this point, Capcom is pushing it (downloadable GEMS are also found on disk, which is rather ridiculous).

 

[hermes]

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.

I would go further and say that DLC should have more than 1/6 of the content for 1/6 of the price since much of the core development like textures, game engine, etc. included in the price of the main game can be re-used for the DLC.

I agree. Personally, I'm still in tune with the old expansion pack model. Remember how much content we got for $30 in Diablo 2: Lord of Destruciton, or Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal? Hell, even Oblivion's the shivering isles expansion was absolutely huge at around 35 hours for about $30 bucks. And now dev's have the audacity to charge people $10 whole dollars for a 30 minute mission and a shitty squadmate?

That depends on the developer and the public. Few people would argue with the quantity and quality of content like Shadow Broker, Minerva's Den, Claptrap's Robot Revolution, Awakening or Undead Nightmare, or their price/content ratio... But some release 4 online maps for 15$ and people consume them happily, so I guess its not a big detriment for them to stop doing it.

 

[hermes]

"And often for compatibility issues, [on] day one, some of that content does need to be on-disc."

Lulwhat?

This is total bullshit.

Remember Mortal Kombat... in many case, its a necessity.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I think the biggest problem with day 1 DLC is that there's no way to judge the actual value of it, especially in relation to the game itself. It's an unknown quantity for an already unknown product.

I've already paid 60 bucks for this game that might be a shit sandwich, why do I have to pay for an extra serving of shit?

 

[Weaver]

It's not my fault that the SDLC, team planning and budgeting at Epic games is all fucked up. There are companies that can complete and ship a whole game without on disc DLC or day 1 DLC and they're doing fine.

Yes, there are companies that never do DLC at all, never release patches, or bugfixes, basically don't anything other than slap a half-assed game on a disc, charge you $60 for it, and still make enough money to laugh all the way to the bank.

Like Nintendo, with their massive suite of critically acclaimed titles.

Besides, when we say DLC, we're talking paid DLC. Patches, IMO, are patches. Maybe I'm too much of an old guard PC gamer, but there is a difference to me.

 

[grigjd3]

I never bought the DLC for Mass Effect 2 and I never felt like the game was missing anything. Really though, this is a market issue. If people were upset enough about DLC, they wouldn't purchase the game and companies would start noticing real fast. However, people are buying these games despite. I don't care for all this DLC (except for Bethesda for some reason) but my money speaks a lot louder than a forum post.

 

[Rad Party God]

But I can do whatever I damn please with my car!!!...

Ahem... yeah, I guess it's an ugly reality nowadays, I can see the reasoning behind it and I understand why it's done, but I also don't justify it as a default action that every single developer / publisher should follow.

 

[mfeff]

Cool story Cliff Bleszinski... but really I wasn't paying attention... to busy playing Witcher 2... and all the cool content CD Projekt Red tosses in for free...

 

[Epona]

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.

Ya know there are limits to what is considered acceptable in the pursuit of profit. You cannot knowingly rip people off. When a business goes beyond a certain level of greed, they should be held responsible.

Don't treat business' like children who can't control themselves. The consumers didn't turn this into what it has become, the publishers have.

 

[FoolKiller]

Analogies aside for the moment. This guy truly is a monumental douchenozzle, isnt he.

I love the presumption of

A: its not a matter of choice and beyond his control as if it actually has to be installed on the disc, or even released at time of release Hell they could keep it as DD and release it two weeks after launch and no one would complain.

B: the ONLY thing that will remedy it is Digital distribution.

C: that Digital distribution is actually an inevitability. Likelihood, yes, but written in stone, absolutely not.

So using a car analogy. Would you buy a car from a guy who only wants to put you into

Spoiler: This beast

After you tell him all you need or want is

Spoiler: A simple low mileage work car

Because he KNOWS that in the future no vehicle will hit the road without a HEMI engine.

Yes Mr Belindurarglebarglski, Remember if your going to keep your head shoved up your ass its not a good idea to keep flapping your mouth open.

Actually this does happen, just not quite to this degree. Options in car manufacturing are sometimes turned on and off at the internal computer level. But they would never admit to it.

As an aside, They seemed to have stopped worrying about piracy anymore. Now the DLC is available (especially for Capcom) for all the pirates to take. Since the content is there, there will be less incentive to get the legitimate game for the pirates.

Also, I have a limited amount of space available on my Xbox hard drive thanks to MS nonsensical control over hard drive size. Now the publisher tells me I have to waste my hard drive space for content I can't use during the install. How the fuck is that fair? Its my hard drive, and I want to only install what I have access to. Why should an extra gig or two be dedicated to storage of your content? If thats the case, I think I should be charging a fee for this service...

 

[tangoprime]

All I want to know is how long before I have to buy a $10 day-one "Developer's Pass" that lets me get all future bug fixes/patches/updates FOR FREE?

Seriously, that's the way I feel like it's headed.

Since broadband internet became the norm they've been able to get away with releasing clearly unfinished products and fix 'em later (or never) on PC, and since this generation of consoles, they're now able to do the same on that platform, along with all kinds of other penny pinching BS like this.

I worked as a cog in the game development cycle, I know how it works, that being said, it's still BS, if it's finished prior to the game shipping, then how about offer your customers a better, more fleshed out, more complete product? Nah, we'll just charge 'em $10 because we can.

So I'll repeat, how long before we have to start paying for our patches and fixes, because clearly that's extra work too?

 

[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.

Ya know there are limits to what is considered acceptable in the pursuit of profit. You cannot knowingly rip people off. When a business goes beyond a certain level of greed, they should be held responsible.

Don't treat business' like children who can't control themselves. The consumers didn't turn this into what it has become, the publishers have.

Oh, don't worry. I still think publishers can't do these things, but it's the consumers fault.
If a game or two bombed because of this, then you bet the developers would certanly think twice before doing something like that again. The gamers had the power to stop this by not buying games that featured on disk DLC. Therefore gamers have no-one to blame but themselves.

 

[Thoric485]

Looking at CD Projekt's post-release support, I can't take excuses like these seriously.

Especially considering the difference in Epic/BioWare/Capcom and CDP's revenues.

 

[Epona]

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.

Ya know there are limits to what is considered acceptable in the pursuit of profit. You cannot knowingly rip people off. When a business goes beyond a certain level of greed, they should be held responsible.

Don't treat business' like children who can't control themselves. The consumers didn't turn this into what it has become, the publishers have.

Oh, don't worry. I still think publishers can't do these things, but it's the consumers fault.
If a game or two bombed because of this, then you bet the developers would certanly think twice before doing something like that again. The gamers had the power to stop this by not buying games that featured on disk DLC. Therefore gamers have no-one to blame but themselves.

Well, gamers didn't create on Disc DLC nor did they ask for it. Blaming gamers for the creation of on Disc DLC is faulty. It's true that gamers should boycott games with on Disc DLC but that is different than saying consumers are responsible for it's existence.