Bleszinski: On-Disk DLC an "Unfortunate Reality"

[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.

 

[ElPatron]

Obviously, they shouldn't do On-Disk, Day 1 DLC. Instead, they should make gamers wait one or two additional weeks before releasing an inferior version the exact same content. That way, everybody is happy! Yay!

How does a waiting period make the DLC inferior?

 

[Epona]

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.

Very true. This idea that other developer/publishers have no choice is complete BS. It's like a thief claiming that he had no choice but to steal the unlocked car.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not saying the consumers are responsible for the existence of on disc DLC, I'm just blaming them for not standing up against it (kudos to everyone who did).

 

[teh_gunslinger]

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.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

No, you're absolutely right. You "hit the nail on the head" so-to-speak.

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.

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.

Also this.

 

[The Wooster]

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.

Very true. This idea that other developer/publishers have no choice is complete BS. It's like a thief claiming that he had no choice but to steal the unlocked car.

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.

 

[Nurb]

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.

Spoiler: Nearly 50 percent of gamers still ignore downloadable content (CLICK)

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/nearly-50-percent-of-gamers-still-ignore-downloadable-content/

 

[neverarine]

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

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

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?

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.

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.