Day one DLC

[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.

 

[Maxtro]

Day 1 DLC is bad.

Day 1 DLC that is obviously content that was taken out of the game in order to nickle and dime the consumer, absolutely unacceptable.

I played Mass Effect 3 without Javik because I absolutely refused to pay for something that should have come with the game when I bought it new.

 

[Lightknight]

Day-1 DLC, stupid.

Again, the developers ARE working on something the moment they finish their work on the main game. How does it benefit anyone for the work they create during that time to be artificially delayed by weeks or months?

Companies are not going to continue to pay the salaries for developers who are just sitting on their asses doing nothing. There is a significant amount of time between code cutoff and the release date of the game. How does the fact that the developers go onto DLC projects immediately after that code cutoff period say anything regarding ethics at all? How does them finishing something in a few months after cut off somehow equate them having been able to put it into the disk when they couldn't alter or add anything in the mainline code for the previous two months?

Listen, I've been in development cycles for software. At the end of a project there's only two things that can happen to a developer that isn't a small celebratory holiday or termination. Either they are moved to another project or they are doing else to make the current product better after release.

Complaining about DLC can often be like being angry at a restaurant for making your fries while your steak was cooking. Why should they wait until the steak is finished once they've thrown it in the oven and can't touch it until it's done before working on something else?

 

[GonzoGamer]

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?

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.

However, what's left to say on the subject? It's a way to gouge the consumer, we all know it, developers and publishers know it even if they won't admit it, and now it's here it probably won't go away. We're stuck with it, just like that unpleasant painful growth on your armpit the doctor can't do anything about

At least some are rolling back a bit on it.
LA Noir had separate gameplay missions auctioned off to different retailers for pre-order bonuses. "But don't worry, you'll be able to buy them later." was a lame concession. That just turned me off from buying it.
As far as I can tell, GTAV only has a few extra premiums (not entire missions) for people who get the special editions from any retailer.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm sorry, but most of the time developers make Day 1 Dlc way before the game is even released,so the whole "it's something for them to work on" reason does'nt apply most of the time.

This is exactly what I'm saying. A game is released only after MONTHS past code cut-off. Code cutoff is the moment that the development stops working on code (not when they "say" they're going to start working on code) and send the file for wrap-up testing and burning onto the games. This is months before release. That is a significant amount of time to produce at least some day-one dlc and to already be well underway regarding any significant content.

Yes, there are absolutely scenarios where the DLC is on-disk or when they shafted the game to sell DLC. I agree that those happen and are wrong. But there being examples of people doing it wrong doesn't make the entire practice somehow unethical. Anymore, it's just an unwise business practice because of how people have made it look just because they don't understand the process.

But there are always two things to consider.

1.Bad games do not sell DLC. Good games do. It would be stupid to make a game like Colonel Marines and to pump a significant amount of DLC production into it. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, just that a good game will always sell more DLC than a shitty one that got cut in half to nickle and dime everyone.

2. No one grabs your money and runs off with it. You always have control over what you buy. DLC isn't some force of nature that steals your money, it's something you have to pay for. Shame on anyone who doesn't pay attention to what they're buying. A fool and his money are soon separated. I'm not saying you personally are a fool. Just that anyone who thinks they can't control where their money goes for entertainment, is one.

It's convenient to scapegoat DLC as some kind of bad guy, but at the end of the day, it's just someone asking if you want fries with that burger and you can always say no.

 

[UnnDunn]

Spoken like a true apologist.

Apologist for whom?

I seriously don't get why people get so bent out of shape about things like this. If the content is worth the asking price, why does it matter if the content is on-disc or downloaded, or if it's released concurrently with the game or months later? Content is content.

 

[UnnDunn]

I'm sorry, but most of the time developers make Day 1 Dlc way before the game is even released,so the whole "it's something for them to work on" reason does'nt apply most of the time.

Who cares when the content was made? Why does it matter? I don't care if it was made after the game went gold, or if it was planned from the beginning. I don't care if it was "cut" from the main game to sell as DLC. It just. Doesn't. Matter.

All that matters is whether it's worth the asking price or not.

 

[B5Alpha]

Knowing EA, I'm surprised Battlefield hasn't done this yet. I mean, they have pre-order DLC, but it comes out two months later, so it wasn't ready to ship with the base game. Hope that doesn't change, because it's the last EA series I like.

 

[Creator002]

Day 1 DLC is fine in my eyes as the developers have weeks, sometimes months, from finishing the game to it actually releasing due to packaging and shipping and whatever. If the DLC is on the disc, however, that's a different story. That type of DLC is unjustified, since we're paying for content that exists on our physical media (or in our digital game files), but is simply locked off. Sort of like buying a house, then having to go back to the realtor to buy the key for the guest bedroom.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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

Oh boy, the E-word.

That's how the publisher chooses to release and distribute the content, more power to them.

Yeah, and they'd never take advantage of that power?

I seriously don't get why people get so bent out of shape about things like this. If the content is worth the asking price, why does it matter if the content is on-disc or downloaded, or if it's released concurrently with the game or months later? Content is content.

Cause it cheapens it.

Again, the developers ARE working on something the moment they finish their work on the main game. How does it benefit anyone for the work they create during that time to be artificially delayed by weeks or months?

I'd rather have them working on something substantial instead of one or two things that could have been in the final product.

Companies are not going to continue to pay the salaries for developers who are just sitting on their asses doing nothing.

Sure they are, look at Duke Nukem Forever's development cycle *rimshot*

There is a significant amount of time between code cutoff and the release date of the game. How does the fact that the developers go onto DLC projects immediately after that code cutoff period say anything regarding ethics at all? How does them finishing something in a few months after cut off somehow equate them having been able to put it into the disk when they couldn't alter or add anything in the mainline code for the previous two months?

Fair enough. That's a reasonable argument.

Listen, I've been in development cycles for software. At the end of a project there's only two things that can happen to a developer that isn't a small celebratory holiday or termination. Either they are moved to another project or they are doing else to make the current product better after release.

I'd be happy for them to make the product better, as long as it doesn't require me to continue paying continuous amounts.

Complaining about DLC can often be like being angry at a restaurant for making your fries while your steak was cooking. Why should they wait until the steak is finished once they've thrown it in the oven and can't touch it until it's done before working on something else?

I see it as

"You just bought the steak, but for two dollars more you could have fries with it!"
"Umm..ok, fine."
"FOR ANOTHER two dollars, you get a salad!"
"Ok..."
"For fifty cents, we'll give you dressing!"
"Are you actually trying to let me have a good time, or just trying to gauge me for more money?"

 

[Lightknight]

I'd rather have them working on something substantial instead of one or two things that could have been in the final product.

What is it to you? If what they produce isn't worth getting, don't buy it. You don't blame a toothpick company for charging $50 for a toothpick if people are buying it. You blame the people paying for something that isn't worth it.

Fair enough. That's a reasonable argument.

That's not how you do it. You're supposed to disagree with me regardless of what I say and then bring my mother into the discussion. When that fails, you've got to compare my position to Nazi Germany and threaten my unborn children.

I'd be happy for them to make the product better, as long as it doesn't require me to continue paying continuous amounts.

But you paid for the game which they created and then sent to you. You did not pay for additional content and with a few exceptions you aren't paying a subscription. You are entitled to them patching up the title where necessary as far as "making better" is concerned, but DLC is new and different work. It's also completely optional. Allow me to draw your attention to a term you used above that is a major problem in the discussion as a whole: ""as long as it doesn't require me..."

People are acting like DLC just reaches into their wallets and runs off with it. If it's not worth buying and people do it anyways, then that's their problems, not the company's. If it is worth buying and they do, then what's the problem?

I'm playing Borderlands 2 right now. Just vanilla. I saw costume for my character that I thought looked cool. Now, there are plenty of other outfits but I don't like them so I wouldn't even consider them. This one, however, is interesting. I found out it was a buck and then decided not to buy it. That's kinda funny, considering I've made more than a couple dollars just typing this response to you (my mornings are particularly slow because most of my clients are on PST whereas I have the regular 8-5 EST shift). What does $1 mean in the scheme of things? But still, that costume is not in my ownership because I simply didn't think it's worth it even though I wanted it. I will not take pity on those who cannot control their spending habbits. I refuse to think the stores peddling their wares are the problem when they aren't selling necessities and the purchase is entirely optional.

I see it as

"You just bought the steak, but for two dollars more you could have fries with it!"

Are you saying that restaurants are currently giving food away for free? Whether you know it or not, you are ALWAYS paying for the sides. Them usually including it in the entre price doesn't make it any less additional content. You're not getting anything for free in nearly every industry. After that game is complete, they don't have to work on anything else at all related to it. They can just go to work on another game and that's it.

Yes, sometimes DLC is charging 50 cents for the condiments. Like that borderland 2 costume I mentioned. But sometimes it's really additional content like the Borderlands 2 main DLC bits. Also, it's not like the game didn't also come with an extremely large list of outfits anyways. You've got to realise that a developer somewhere designed these costumes. They deserve compensation for that work. I don't think $1 every time is the right amount, but they do deserve something for making a new product they didn't have to make.

 

[Nielas]

Complaining about DLC can often be like being angry at a restaurant for making your fries while your steak was cooking. Why should they wait until the steak is finished once they've thrown it in the oven and can't touch it until it's done before working on something else?

Don't you just hate all those fast food places with their Minute-1 DLC fries? Everyone knows that they have the fries already done when you order your burger and yet they still insist on charging you extra for the fries rather than including the fries in the price of the burger.