Bleszinski: On-Disk DLC an "Unfortunate Reality"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Me not buying games from Dude Huge an "unfortunate reality".
Until Epic Games make games I want to play we're unfortunately stuck with that situation.
As a side note: he talks about games going fully digital. Well, there is such a platform. Just a shame he doesn't develop for it.
And said platform does not need 3 or 4 months of cert from MS or Sony. Oh well.
Until Epic Games make games I want to play we're unfortunately stuck with that situation.
As a side note: he talks about games going fully digital. Well, there is such a platform. Just a shame he doesn't develop for it.
And said platform does not need 3 or 4 months of cert from MS or Sony. Oh well.
No, you're absolutely right. You "hit the nail on the head" so-to-speak.Simonoly said:
What really gets me about all of this? The people who come in to these discussions defending this bullshit. Siding with the douche-bags at companies like EPIC, Bioware, EA, and others. It's especially cute when they condescendingly try to defend their stance by pulling out that little "game development cycle" chart. (coincidentally, as most people seem to forget, a chart that was released by EA/Bioware to cover their own asses when gamers discovered the on-disc Day 1 DLC in Mass Effect 3.)
Still, you're right. For any content that's printed on-disc it has to go through testing by both the developer and the owners of the platform. (i.e. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc) If they started work on DLC after the vanilla product was finished and sent for testing, then they wouldn't be able to print it on disc unless it too was finished and sent in for testing.
Ergo, this whole bullshit story of "Well we had a little spare time before release so we whipped up this little extra bit of stuff for people and put it on the disc; though you have to pay extra for it because it's not part of the vanilla game." is exactly that; bullshit. And anyone who actually believes what these developers and publishers are saying, and anyone who actively tries defending it, is a gullible fool.
Also this.GiantRaven said:
I'm not defending Epic here, but there's a huge difference between supporting games on the PC and supporting games on the consoles. CD Projekt controls their patch distribution, Microsoft control's Epic's. Compare Valve's support of TF2 on the PC compared to the console versions.Crono1973 said:
It IS bullshit. If we buy a game with data on a disk, we own that data and can access it to do as we want, same as devices we buy. If we're only getting access to certain parts of a disk we pay full price for, then we don't own it, and it's not worth full price.
It's really very simple: If they're going to say we don't own what we buy and want to start this day one DLC crap then the main game needs to be sold for $30 AT MOST for renting their data and using it on their machines that just happen to be in our homes
It really sucks how things have changed since the 90's and early 2000's:
Pre-2006: Gamers paid full price for all of a game, small DLC came out that didn't involve chunks of story
Post-2006: Gamers pay full price for a "base game module" that changes major content depending on what day-one DLC you attach to it.
Notice how these companies are trying to make once loyal fans into "whiney entitlement babies" now, like they're some fox news host for wanting things as they ALWAYS have been, and the younger kiddies here are actually agreeing they don't deserve to get all the content on a disc or that they're bad for buying and selling used.
Games are being made into action figures where the money is made with the accessories, not the main figure. But even then, we can sell the action figure if we feel like it and not called a thief.
Corporate gaming sucks. Don't give them money.
It's really very simple: If they're going to say we don't own what we buy and want to start this day one DLC crap then the main game needs to be sold for $30 AT MOST for renting their data and using it on their machines that just happen to be in our homes
It really sucks how things have changed since the 90's and early 2000's:
Pre-2006: Gamers paid full price for all of a game, small DLC came out that didn't involve chunks of story
Post-2006: Gamers pay full price for a "base game module" that changes major content depending on what day-one DLC you attach to it.
Notice how these companies are trying to make once loyal fans into "whiney entitlement babies" now, like they're some fox news host for wanting things as they ALWAYS have been, and the younger kiddies here are actually agreeing they don't deserve to get all the content on a disc or that they're bad for buying and selling used.
Games are being made into action figures where the money is made with the accessories, not the main figure. But even then, we can sell the action figure if we feel like it and not called a thief.
Corporate gaming sucks. Don't give them money.
i dont see the problem.... i prefer on disk dlc... my internet sucks, royaly so having to a dlc would take hours on end just to download... if im offered that on a disk, yeah im gonna want it that way
LOL. Rolfwesselius' naive description of the submission process was very idealistic. We address all sorts of issues with a day-1 title update (it's not usually new content, it's generally a new executable and replacement data to fix map holes, and so on), and the first parties agree to waive certain issues with the build that will go to be pressed, on the condition that there will be a TU on day 1 that fixes all of the bugs that will be on the disk.Ziggy said:
And no, I'm not condoning this behavior, merely reporting what happens. I've been in this industry for 3 decades, and I dislike immensely the fact that nowadays it's deemed acceptable to keep cramming content into the games well beyond when it could feasibly be tested and, therefore, forcing us into submitting games to first parties that is unfinished and usually broken in a few places. To then have the first parties agree to turn a blind eye and force the user to download a couple of hundred megs of data before they can even play the game once they've bought it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but that is the way the industry has moved (mainly due to crap scheduling, over-ambitious and badly planned projects, inadequate time alloted for said over-ambitious projects, and massive pressure from publishers).
It used to be the case that there was a mad scramble to get the game shippable for the RC date and THEN it was submitted to first parties. The team could relax a little and wait until the build either got approved, or they have a few fixes before having to resubmit. Now, though, a half-assed game is booted over to the first parties, and the team are then forced to crank like mad (on top of the lack of sleep they've already had) for another 2 months straight to fix everything that's broken before the disk hits the shelves.
My prediction (hope) is that at some point soon, a huge-title day-1 TU will fail to make it in time, and a disk will hit the shelves that is in bad shape. Once this happens, the first parties will be forced to tighten up their submission requirements back to how they used to be, and agree to waive far less problems with the actual submission build.
An interesting story going back to the good old 8-bit days of the C64 and the Speccy... Anyone remember Uridium from Hewson Consultants? The game was shipped and had a whole bunch other levels with different graphics (the same size as the game itself) that were locked and hidden. The plan was to release an Easter Egg code at some point to delight the players...
Hewson had a change of heart after the game sold so well, and released Uridium+ a few months later as a whole new game, and at full price. Guess what the content was? Yep, you've guessed it - the locked levels from the first Uridium that every player already owned anyway.
Shameless? Something like that. LOL.
Hewson had a change of heart after the game sold so well, and released Uridium+ a few months later as a whole new game, and at full price. Guess what the content was? Yep, you've guessed it - the locked levels from the first Uridium that every player already owned anyway.
Shameless? Something like that. LOL.
@DiamanteGeeza Bad project management is nothing new in the gaming industry sadly though. Same with dodgy Q&A practices.
And to be fair pc's have there problems with day 1 patches as well that seem to be coming part and parcel of a release nowadays.
Also digital distribution is an idea many industry's have been thinking about for a long time. Just that now they are actually able to do it due to the spread of broadband connections.
Read a post somewhere where someone talked about how games tend to be a one hit wonder in terms of profits (think it was in the debate about used game sales). And if DLC allows more revenue devs will go for it. The problem with DLC day 1 is that it sells best on release not a few weeks later. As such on disk dlc content probably isn't going anywhere soon, if a full digital download is 1gig and you can't play while updates are going on, it makes a certain amount of sense to limit the size of the download in order to activate the content as quickly as possible.
And to be fair pc's have there problems with day 1 patches as well that seem to be coming part and parcel of a release nowadays.
Also digital distribution is an idea many industry's have been thinking about for a long time. Just that now they are actually able to do it due to the spread of broadband connections.
Read a post somewhere where someone talked about how games tend to be a one hit wonder in terms of profits (think it was in the debate about used game sales). And if DLC allows more revenue devs will go for it. The problem with DLC day 1 is that it sells best on release not a few weeks later. As such on disk dlc content probably isn't going anywhere soon, if a full digital download is 1gig and you can't play while updates are going on, it makes a certain amount of sense to limit the size of the download in order to activate the content as quickly as possible.
I'm only annoyed that game prices haven't gone down while actual playable content has.
That's really my major complaint.
Basically I used to get a cheeseburger for the cheeseburger price, now I'm getting a hamburger but it is still priced and labeled like the cheeseburger.
I can also buy cheese to get back to where I was for a mere markup of 2-4 hundred % the cost of a slice of cheese.
If games got cheaper and the monetized out all the little extras I'd care a little less. I'd still play games about as much as I do now (almost none) but at least I'd pay less since I wouldn't be paying a high up front cost for a DLC delivery vehicle.
Basically if someone has nothing to say, they troll so that they can feel important. Sadly they usually get the most replies (usually).
That's really my major complaint.
Basically I used to get a cheeseburger for the cheeseburger price, now I'm getting a hamburger but it is still priced and labeled like the cheeseburger.
I can also buy cheese to get back to where I was for a mere markup of 2-4 hundred % the cost of a slice of cheese.
If games got cheaper and the monetized out all the little extras I'd care a little less. I'd still play games about as much as I do now (almost none) but at least I'd pay less since I wouldn't be paying a high up front cost for a DLC delivery vehicle.
They were trolling for pitty quotes on their post. Which is why I removed it from quoting you so that they don't get the satisfaction twice.ElPatron said:
Basically if someone has nothing to say, they troll so that they can feel important. Sadly they usually get the most replies (usually).
Im pretty confused why you quoted me because your counter point has nothing to do with the car reference I brought up. I said nothing about features in a car, My car reference was buying from a shitty car dealer who is determined to rail road you into a nice vehicle, but not one you want or need.FoolKiller said:
If I missed the connection, I apologize, but I simply am not seeing it.
I was having a rant about day-1 Title Updates (not DLC), which I guess is a little off-topic. LOL.Mayhemski said:
But it certainly is the case that most games make most of their money shortly after release (and most of the time barely recoup the cost of the actual development and marketing), which is why the used-games business is a bitter pill to swallow for the publishers. Having people pay for DLC extends the revenue stream of the game and sometimes actually allows the publishers to turn a profit (and before anybody starts ranting about evil publishers and capitalism, publishers making a profit is a good thing... if they didn't, you wouldn't have any games to play).
It's also worth noting that the used-car/used-book/used-whatever comparison isn't strictly accurate because the vast majority of games these days have a huge back-end infrastructure to maintain. Publishers and first parties spend hundreds of millions of dollars maintaining back-end services that allows for online play, stat tracking, online communities, and so on - car companies and book publishers don't provide you with anything once you've purchased their product, whereas most game publishers now do (if car companies offered free parts and servicing for life, then the comparison would be more accurate). Not getting revenue from used game sales hurts the publishers because they don't contribute anything to these massive, expensive, and extremely complex back-end services.
Think of WoW - if that wasn't operated on a subscription model, there's no way it would still be in business. Their server farms, located all round the world, cost an absolute fortune to maintain, upgrade, and run. If the 12m subscribers had just paid a one-off fee for the game, Blizzard would have been bankrupt long ago.
I think I've gone wildly off-topic again.... ;-)
Stuff like the "From Ashes" DLC there shouldn't be any problem with. Some content that was actually finished for it could make it into the game disk but not at a level of polish that fans expect so they put what they could on the disk and leave the rest to finish and polish up after content complete and release it as the day 1 DLC. People buy it and compensate the devs for work that the different teams put into it after the game's main content was finished.
The distinction I always want to be clear on is that between downloadable content and disk-locked content.
I can see why the devs and pubs are reluctant to be forward about it though because most gamers are entirely ignorant to the development process and just have hard-wired themselves to think "Day 1 DLC ALWAYS equals company trying to rip me off with content purposefully cut. No exceptions. Post inflammatory comments on forum."
The distinction I always want to be clear on is that between downloadable content and disk-locked content.
I can see why the devs and pubs are reluctant to be forward about it though because most gamers are entirely ignorant to the development process and just have hard-wired themselves to think "Day 1 DLC ALWAYS equals company trying to rip me off with content purposefully cut. No exceptions. Post inflammatory comments on forum."
Isn't this basically what Extra Credits talked about recently? Im fine with them making more game in their down time but why do they seem so big a part sometimes, a command pack I can understand but an entire character who takes part in key story events... I dunno...
