Day one DLC

[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.

 

[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.

It matters if parts of a game are chopped out simply so the developer/publisher can make you pay more for the full product.It's the equivalent of a car manufacturer ripping out the steering wheels of their cars and making you pay a extra 100$ for them to reinstall it.

Have you ever produced any software? Have you ever run a business? Because if you had done either, you wouldn't be making these truly horrible analogies.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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.

True, companies aren't the only ones at fault.

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.

What the freak did you just say about me you little reasonable forum-goer? I'll have you know that I've used Godwin's Law a grand total of once (after which I apologized profusely) I have over 500 confirmed arguments (that ended with a mutual understanding).

What the frick did you just say about me, you little reasonable forum goer? I?ll have you know I?ve been involved in numerous discussions on the World Wide Web, and I have over 300 confirmed arguments (that ended with a mutual understanding). I've used Godwin's Law a grand total of once (after which I apologized profusely). If only you could have known what approval your little ?clever? comment was about to bring upon you.

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..."

Then I should clarify my position.
I'm against DLC practices that remove content that is necessary to enjoy the game and/or content that does not require additional work for the developers.

Day-1 DLC may irritate me, but as long as it does not include the above, I can live with it.

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.

By coincidence, I think Borderlands 2 DLC practices are acceptable. Most primarily in that they don't restrict you from playing people who do have the DLC.

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.

W-well....Sometimes fries are included or they give me fries for being a loyal customer.

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.

Well like I said in my first post, I'm ok with cosmetic content. It's not really core to the game. I agree they should be paid for it.

My prime issue is that I worry things are going to turn out like this:

"Here's another level for you to play for 5 dollars."
"Awesome!
(later)
"That was pretty fun. Wait... the map shows I've only explored 75% of this level."
"For two dollars more we'll give you a double jump to access the rest!"

I guess that's where I was going with the salad/condiment analogy.

 

[UnnDunn]

Have you ever produced any software? Have you ever run a business? Because if you had done either, you wouldn't be making these truly horrible analogies.

I do work in a electronic store and we don't chop things out of our devices and make people pay more for us to put them back in.We don't disable certain features on our tvs,computers,or radios and make the person pay to unlock them.

And my analogy was spot on because that's exactly what a car manufacturer would do if they could get away with it like the game industry.They would rip out the steering wheels and claim you still have the full car but you can pay extra for a vital component of that car.Anyway I'm done wasting my breath on you corporate apologists because you are beyond reason.

The fact that you try to equate "working in an electronics store" with "running a business" tells me you have no idea what's involved in running a business, marketing or software production. So you should probably take a step back and understand that the issue simply isn't as simple as you seem to think it is.

 

[ThriKreen]

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.

Just an FYI, it's better to refer to it as "content lockdown" instead of "code cutoff". It's what we use and a more accurate term of the development state. Mostly means no new stuff, fix up, finish, and polish existing.

Cut content might be reserved for DLC release, or might even get recommissioned into something else as it's missing context. Of course, you don't know what the original intent was, so people tend to think it's all original game content instead of repurposed.

I like to use the cake analogy for the dev process, once you have the lockdown, it's akin to putting icing and decoration, so additional stuff is really difficult. And DLC is the left over ingredients made into a muffin.

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.

Also depends on what actually is on disc and how it's used.

Street Fighter 4, was to avoid fragmentation of the player base from all those costumes. I'm not justifying the selling it though, but I understand the tech reasons. Of course, it's all costumes so not really that impact to the game, it's their choice how they want to sell it. Personally I would have done the BF3 unlock thing, where you can unlock the costume manually through some challenges, or pay to unlock them all.

For ME3, I believe it was the core data files for generic combat and shout phrases for the prothean, while the story module for him was a separate download. Chances are it was easier to leave the prothean data in the resource files and have the story DLC reference them. And it meant a smaller download in the future too.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

For ME3, I believe it was the core data files for generic combat and shout phrases for the prothean, while the story module for him was a separate download. Chances are it was easier to leave the prothean data in the resource files and have the story DLC reference them. And it meant a smaller download in the future too.

The story module was separate? I heard that it was all in the game and you only had to change one line of code to get it all if you wanted to hack the game.

 

[ThriKreen]

The story module was separate? I heard that it was all in the game and you only had to change one line of code to get it all if you wanted to hack the game.

The core NPC files for it to act as part of your squad, combat behaviour and some generic shouts are still there, as during dev they had the voice clips recorded a long time ago. So you can modify some files to enable him to be selected when starting a mission. But that's it, it's just unlocking the prothean as a squadmate in the selection screen.

You're still missing out on a 600mb+ download for the actual "From Ashes" story mode. Couple missions, new world, several levels, enemies, weapons, story specific voice clips for your squad.

I can see why the NPC files would be retained in the game, mostly a resource integration issue, as say you have the DLC, unlocked him, and later reinstalled the game but did not download the DLC. Your saved game would probably still retain the ability for him to be chosen, but you can't play the story module - assuming you didn't have a saved game set on one of its levels. Alternatively it might just complain about it and not let you play period, I don't know, I haven't grabbed it yet. Mind you, I've read about his story and integration, and in my ME3 playthrough I never noticed lacking him made me miss anything at all. So I doubt he's as important as some people have raged on about.

Like I said before, resource handling in games is very tricky to deal with, and sometimes it's easier to leave half-finished content in than deal with the risk of ripping it out and break a link elsewhere.

Developer side, the decision probably went along the lines of "What section is moving along too slow that we can cut so we can make our milestone deadline and switch to content complete/lockdown? Can we salvage it for DLC release later? Okay, this one, done!"

Unfortunately people only see what's been cut and salvaged for DLC release and rage over it, you don't hear about the other parts of the game that's been cut and never mentioned or touched again (hint: it's quite a lot).

 

[Splitzi]

I feel like if the DLC is made after the game has already been finished and was already intended to be a separate DLC in the weeks to come that it is fine. Who cares if they finished early? As long as it's not obviously hacked out of the main game as a cash grab why do you care when it comes out?

 

[Nielas]

I do work in a electronic store and we don't chop things out of our devices and make people pay more for us to put them back in.We don't disable certain features on our tvs,computers,or radios and make the person pay to unlock them.

And my analogy was spot on because that's exactly what a car manufacturer would do if they could get away with it like the game industry.They would rip out the steering wheels and claim you still have the full car but you can pay extra for a vital component of that car.Anyway I'm done wasting my breath on you corporate apologists because you are beyond reason.

So when you guys sell a TV you also throw in a BlueRay player and a surround sound system for free since you do not want to sell an entertainment product with features missing?

 

[lazyslothboy]

I do work in a electronic store and we don't chop things out of our devices and make people pay more for us to put them back in.We don't disable certain features on our tvs,computers,or radios and make the person pay to unlock them.

And my analogy was spot on because that's exactly what a car manufacturer would do if they could get away with it like the game industry.They would rip out the steering wheels and claim you still have the full car but you can pay extra for a vital component of that car.Anyway I'm done wasting my breath on you corporate apologists because you are beyond reason.

So when you guys sell a TV you also throw in a BlueRay player and a surround sound system for free since you do not want to sell an entertainment product with features missing?

If the customer pays for it then we give them the full set,what we won't do is take away the BluRay player when the customer had already paid for it then try to charge them extra.

I'm sorry, but that analogy doesn't make any sense at all. To my knowledge, the vast majority of games with day one dlc don't advertise the day one dlc parts as part of the main game. They simply are extra additions to the game that you can choose or choose to not purchase.