Day one DLC

[Eve Charm]

IF people are losing interest in your game within two weeks that's a problem with your game. The best selling DLC's all had months between the release date and the dlc date. Borderlands 1 and 2, Call of duty games, Battlefield games, Elder scrolls, GTA, Saints row, Batman.

When you make something bad like aliens or DLC costumes for fighting games, ya you want to put them out fast because given enough time, ya players won't care about your crummy dlc.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I only support day one DLC if it comes free when you purchase the game new. Otherwise it's bullshit.

 

[runic knight]

I only support day one DLC if it comes free when you purchase the game new. Otherwise it's bullshit.

They used to have a name for that. it was called "in-game unlockable"

I didn't touch on it, but a lot of others did. On-disk dlc is always bullshit. No excuses or exceptions. It is one thing to have a team work on extra art or models that will get released when the game comes out while it is in the process of being certified and what not. It is another to hide on-disk content behind a paywall just because you want some money.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I only support day one DLC if it comes free when you purchase the game new. Otherwise it's bullshit.

They used to have a name for that. it was called "in-game unlockable"

I didn't touch on it, but a lot of others did. On-disk dlc is always bullshit. No excuses or exceptions. It is one thing to have a team work on extra art or models that will get released when the game comes out while it is in the process of being certified and what not. It is another to hide on-disk content behind a paywall just because you want some money.

Where did I refer to on disc content?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I hate Day One DLC with a passion, you'll never be able to convince me otherwise that it was content stripped from the game to be resold.

 

[Shdwrnr]

There is a pro-DLC argument that seems to never come up: Video game prices have gone down a lot while the cost to produce them has gone up by a very large margin. It was not uncommon to see a cartridge for the Nintendo Entertainment System clock at $50 dollars back in the '90s (I recall my Super Mario Brothers 3 cartridge was $49.99 from a Woolworths store in 1990). According to inflation, that game would cost almost $90 today. Currently, the cost to create video games has risen, the demand for content has risen, but the MSRP has been locked at $50-$60. Consumers would throw a conniption fit if video game publishers began charging the $90-$100 dollars inflation predicts, so they have been recouping what they can by charging the MSRP and creating smaller packets of additional content for $5-$15 (for Australians, the increased rate would still be in effect in addition to your arcane tariff artifacts: you would be paying $170-$200).

To me, this kind of falls into the same category as other psychological perceptions. In practice, it's better this way for everyone but it FEELS like you're being ripped off (the same as how clothing retailers are cheating you with price manipulation in that it FEELS better to get a $100 pair of pants for $50 dollars even though those pants have always and will always only ever cost $50).

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Any content other than the vanilla game being available at launch is disingenuous and deliberately trying to make people purchasing the game as they would any other game feel like they're missing out. That's pretty much my stance on the issue.

 

[Karma168]

Well a game has to be sent off weeks-months in advance of release to allow certification, disk burning, etc. and in that time the guys who make the graphic side of a game can't really do anything new because they have to wait until the engine, etc is built (think of it like an electrician having to wait for the house to be built so he can start doing the wiring). So rather than sit twiddling their thumbs the developers will make DLC; since most day one dlc is just reskins, new weapons, etc. they can be ready before the game goes on sale so they put the dlc up on release day.

What would be the point of delaying the release by even a few days, other than gamers negative reaction to it? If you put those unlock codes in the box people are more likely to want to get them than if it appears on the marketplace a week later and if you have it on steam/origin you can bundle it together into a one click thing which makes people more interested. Sure the negative reactions aren't great for publicity but how many people who complain about it still buy it on day 1 because they want the extra content? Money yells a lot louder than a grumble.

 

[Something Amyss]

There isn't really any argument to support Day-One DLC except as a preorder bonus, and even that argument has shakier legs than a postcoital giraffe.

It's quite possible to develop DLC in the time between a disc being finalised and the release date. Whether you like it or not, this is a valid argument.

The problem comes in when they instead use funds, resources and time for the game for DLC, load it n the disc and lie.

There is a pro-DLC argument that seems to never come up: Video game prices have gone down a lot while the cost to produce them has gone up by a very large margin. It was not uncommon to see a cartridge for the Nintendo Entertainment System clock at $50 dollars back in the '90s (I recall my Super Mario Brothers 3 cartridge was $49.99 from a Woolworths store in 1990). According to inflation, that game would cost almost $90 today. Currently, the cost to create video games has risen, the demand for content has risen, but the MSRP has been locked at $50-$60. Consumers would throw a conniption fit if video game publishers began charging the $90-$100 dollars inflation predicts, so they have been recouping what they can by charging the MSRP and creating smaller packets of additional content for $5-$15 (for Australians, the increased rate would still be in effect in addition to your arcane tariff artifacts: you would be paying $170-$200).

To me, this kind of falls into the same category as other psychological perceptions. In practice, it's better this way for everyone but it FEELS like you're being ripped off (the same as how clothing retailers are cheating you with price manipulation in that it FEELS better to get a $100 pair of pants for $50 dollars even though those pants have always and will always only ever cost $50).

You know this argument comes up all the time, right? It's also incredibly ignorant. It assumes the only meaningful measure of cost beyond the price sticker is inflation. With standard wages and buying power dropping as cost of living rises, arguing it would be X dollars based on modern currency is meaningless because people could better afford the extra money. Inflation, outside of a vacuum, is pointless. Games are also a big industry now. Game costs may have increased, but so to have game profits. This industry is experiencing major growth even as it complains that piracy, used games, sharing, and witches are destroying it.

Even ignoring all that, the argument is effectively that gaming should be able to live outside its means. If, and this means ignoring a lot of evidence to the contrary, but if the problem is that games aren't making enough back on their up front costs, they need to be working towards making the process sustainable. DLC, like many methods, is only a stopgap method here. Still, this is a multi-billion dollar industry, and the notion that they need to make up for production costs is utterly inane.

 

[CloudAtlas]

There is an argument to be made: There's often a lot of time passing between content developers having finished their work and games being sold in stores. And in that time, those people can work on DLC. But, yea, the seemingly irresistible temptation to cut out content just to sell it as DLC is enough reason for not exactly being a fan of it.

Totalbiscuit once said something about that argument. I believe he said that the time between the game completion and the moment they hit the store, the official release date is accounted for in the games budget and thus shouldn't be charged extra for.

Could be, I don't know. In any case, the industry hasn't given me sufficient reason to trust them to not carve out content just for paid DLC, and as long as they haven't, I'm not defending it.

 

[Lightknight]

Any content other than the vanilla game being available at launch is disingenuous and deliberately trying to make people purchasing the game as they would any other game feel like they're missing out. That's pretty much my stance on the issue.

So you are of the opinion that the developers continuing to work in the months between code cutoff (the point in which they can no longer work on the vanilla game because it is getting certified, packaged, and shipped) and the sale of the game itself is wrong? What do you think they should do with their time in the interim as well? Do you feel like they should continue to pull a paycheck during this time or should they be left to fend for themselves during those months? How about the developers who finish their areas of expertise before code cutoff? Should they be jetisoned from the company from a rooftop canon or maybe can they just start a new project related to the game that may be ready for launch as a download?

I've worked in software dev cycles. You never want developers sitting on their asses because they're likely on salary and that's wasted money. You're also not going to fire them after a project unless they're contracted developers. You want to maintain your good developers because recruitment is difficult at this degree of job specialization. You'll also have different developers who are specialized in only one or two areas of the game. So just because there's a buggy area doesn't mean that all developers will be able to even work on that because it may not be their area.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Any content other than the vanilla game being available at launch is disingenuous and deliberately trying to make people purchasing the game as they would any other game feel like they're missing out. That's pretty much my stance on the issue.

So you are of the opinion that the developers continuing to work in the months between code cutoff (the point in which they can no longer work on the vanilla game because it is getting certified, packaged, and shipped) and the sale of the game itself is wrong? What do you think they should do with their time in the interim as well? Do you feel like they should continue to pull a paycheck during this time or should they be left to fend for themselves during those months? How about the developers who finish their areas of expertise before code cutoff? Should they be jetisoned from the company from a rooftop canon or maybe can they just start a new project related to the game that may be ready for launch as a download?

I've worked in software dev cycles. You never want developers sitting on their asses because they're likely on salary and that's wasted money. You're also not going to fire them after a project unless they're contracted developers. You want to maintain your good developers because recruitment is difficult at this degree of job specialization. You'll also have different developers who are specialized in only one or two areas of the game. So just because there's a buggy area doesn't mean that all developers will be able to even work on that because it may not be their area.

Have them work on DLC that will be released well after the game's initial launch. I have no problem with well-crafted DLC (or shitty DLC, I wouldn't buy it but it's perfectly fine) that is available months after launch, because it's the initial launch where people should get the whole game without being pressured to pay more. As for buggy areas, I don't see bug fixes being paid DLC, but your point is more that some devs are attached to areas that are flawless already and can't work any more on the game. In which case, yeah, later DLC.

 

[Lightknight]

Have them work on DLC that will be released well after the game's initial launch. I have no problem with well-crafted DLC (or shitty DLC, I wouldn't buy it but it's perfectly fine) that is available months after launch, because it's the initial launch where people should get the whole game without being pressured to pay more. As for buggy areas, I don't see bug fixes being paid DLC, but your point is more that some devs are attached to areas that are flawless already and can't work any more on the game. In which case, yeah, later DLC.

So you feel that arbitrarily delaying the release of finished DLC that would otherwise be there for individuals who love the game and finish it in a couple days is somehow preferred to releasing the same DLC on day one if they worked on it after code cut off for the main storyline?

What is it to you if the DLC is available early or not? Can't you personally just wait a couple months as desired and then buy it at a discount the same time you would have purchased it otherwise? I fail to see how anyone loses if it is released early but can clearly see how some people lose out if it's released late.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well isn't it safer to just put what they want and can afford into the game before they send it off then go work on the next project right away? There is a lot of unfinished and never released DLC out their because the game they were for just never sold enough to warrant all the fees and bug fixing of releasing it for sale on the market places.

I'm sure the normal consumer doesn't know jack about the dev cycle, But they can see palette swap costumes, and basically all of Dead space 3's day one DLC totaling 30 bucks as an sucker punch cash grab. (5 bucks so the bots take half as long, or have a voice really ;p) And it's hard to look cool when someone purchased your game at the full asking price to advertise more dlc on the game start menu to try and get more money out of them before they even played the game to begin with.

 

[josemlopes]

Most day one DLC should be free if only for the purpose of gaining some good PR since most day one DLC's arent exactly all that expensive to make (or buy).

 

[Maximum Bert]

Dont like the majority of DLC at all if the game is almost limitlessly expandable i.e Little big Planet then I will accept DLC.

Usually I think is this content good and does it improve the game if it is yes then it should have been included in the game if no then whats the point of it?

They should be working on a new project or having a break if they like. Thing is DLC can be quite a bit of revenue for little work. I dont think people would mind DLC as much if it released say a few months after the product shipped but then ofc not many people will still be playing most games.

I get why its a thing but I dont agree with it and never have, same goes for micro-transactions. I have bought a few DLCs in the past but not many (yeah sometimes I get suckered and I know it). I think I have probably spent around 20 pounds this gen overall on DLC as I just dont want to support it.

 

[Lightknight]

But that's only because the suits haven't allowed enough time/money/resource for the game to be developed and finished appropriately in the first place.

It's not a good enough excuse as far as I'm concerned and the drive to release a game early or release it unfinished is usually all down to one thing - greed.

That's day one patching that you're thinking about. Day one patching is indicative of bugs that weren't stamped down in time for release that wasn't deemed big enough to halt the process or exploits that weren't caught until after code cutoff. DLC is something different. We don't often see games that are crappy also getting dedicated DLC. Crap games are meant to get what they get on release and to then get slammed by reviews. A crappy game doesn't sell DLC. A good game does. Developing DLC alongside a video game that sucks or isn't finished is a very dangerous prospect for that reason. Especially if the DLC would bring it up to par. No, most games have DLC that is just additional content. Like borderlands 2, the vanilla game itself is full and complete. The DLC from the $1 skins to the 4 loftier story-line DLCs are just additions. Don't forget that the first 2 of those DLC storylines were available after 1 and then 2 months after release.

Let's also not forget that not all DLC is the same. Having horse armor available day-one is significantly different than having DLC with 50% more storyline.

Yes, we have examples of games that were rushed and games with rip-off DLC practices. But these games seldom suffer because of DLC. They suffer from bad time and resource budgeting more than anything else.

I remember working on one piece of software that surprised us. The company acquired it from a company that went bankrupt and didn't do the best due diligence on it. As such, we had planned to launch a significant amount of resources to it but it was actually closer to being done than we had imagined. So code cutoff came early while the launch date remained the same. During that gap we developed an entire new module for the application that was itself due before launch. This does happen, especially with a motivated and experienced team. The company gives bonuses for bugs fixed and especially for assignments finished early.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Day-1 DLC, stupid.
On Disc DLC, more stupid.

Give people some breathing room, let them find if they like the game. If they like it, they'll buy more content right?

It's like what Capcom perfected with re-releases, just add a little more content and people will buy ANOTHER GODDAMN COPY OF THE GAME.

It's fucking stupid. It's a cancer on the gaming industry.
No, I don't think they should give free hand-outs, but I hate to see videogames becoming monetized to the point that no one wants to play them any more.

If people are gonna make eety-bity DLC packages, they should just stick with a subscription based service or episodic gaming.

I can begrudgingly accept "alternative content" DLC, like Dragon's Crown narration or cosmetic features.

When you have to pay extra for hard mode (Metro 2033) something is very fucking wrong.

 

[Strazdas]

I'm a pretty big fan of Paradox Interactive but their day one DLC regarding EU4 made me loose a lot of respect for them.

So at the very day the game launches there is a DLC avaible for "only" a few bucks. The argument is oh content require work and thus we need to charge. So yeah are you going to charge extra for music and sound?

I've never bothered caring about these type of things but this really makes me hate it.

Yep. I loved Paradox and what they stood for with their extensive support for modding community (the best modders support ive seen), but this selling patches like DLCs seems to have infected them as well.

Still EU4 looks like a great game and im getting it. eventually. Not the DLC though.

 

[UnnDunn]

There is so much self-entitled whining going on in this thread.

I don't care one bit whether DLC is released on day one or day 1000, or whether it's on the disc or downloaded, or whether it's skin packs or entirely new missions. I just don't care about any of that.

All I care about is the value delivered by the DLC as a function of how entertaining it is and how much it costs. If it's a content that I want to play, for a low enough price, I'll buy it. Doesn't matter if it's a day-one paid disc unlock. That's how the publisher chooses to release and distribute the content, more power to them.