Day one DLC

[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.

 

[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?

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.

If the customer pays for it, the game companies will five them the full DLC set. It's just not included in the base price. I am sure that your store does not sell the full entertainment center package for the retail price of a basic TV set.

The companies are offering you the basic TV and expect you to pay extra for the BluRay and the surround sound. You seem to expect that for that price you should be getting the full entertainment center package.

 

[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?

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.

If the customer pays for it, the game companies will five them the full DLC set. It's just not included in the base price. I am sure that your store does not sell the full entertainment center package for the retail price of a basic TV set.

The companies are offering you the basic TV and expect you to pay extra for the BluRay and the surround sound. You seem to expect that for that price you should be getting the full entertainment center package.

No,I expect to get the full product not half of it.If I pay for a house then I want the entire thing not a building with locked off rooms that you have to pay the retailer to open.

Then you should have paid for the whole house and not just bought half of it and expect that the sellers will throw in the other half for free.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

Perhaps this is used differently according to software segment or company in question. I said I worked in software dev cycles but that's of course not necessarily gaming (I don't want to get too specific with exactly what company I work for and who we're partners with in case I ever run my mouth too much). We do use "code cutoff". Is "content lockdown" a standard term across the gaming segment of the software industry or would that term be potentially different from gaming studio to gaming studio? In any event, it sounds like they're synonymous in function as both mean that all the developer's code/content have to be entered by that time (of course, you and I both know that this time is slightly more flexible than it sounds). But I can see how code cutoff may potentially be less accurate when you think of all the coding that has to take place between content lockdown and release. Especially if editing is potentially involved. In my industry there is little to no work to be done in-house after code cutoff. There's testing and then it's put out to clients after the installer has been created. Significant enough outstanding bugs kick it back into the dev cycle towards another code cutoff

Have you really found your gaming development environment to be particularly standardized across organizations? I've found it to be pretty different from one company to another with the occasional cross overs. Basic principles stay the same but other things may vary with terminology being a common variance. One thing I'll say is we've never used content cutoff but we're also not producing entertainment software.

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.

Hmm, that's good. I like that one.

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.

Yeah, I'd agree that costumes are as benign as it gets to day-one dlc.

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.

Right. I don't really have a complaint unless the entire DLC component is on the disk and you're just paying for an access code. I feel like I should own all of what's on that disk and not have parts of it arbitrarily cordoned off. I mean, in reality it makes little or no difference if they had it on the disk or made me download it. But locking a room in the house I just bought until I pay for the key feels a lot difference than me paying to have a new room added on.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

Hah. I have fallen into Godwin's law as well, but the person was essentially arguing for wiping out a group of people (based on race and belief) so the comparison was apt.

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.

I can completely agree with that. While I do advocate that Day-1 DLC can be legitimate, I'm not saying it doesn't occasionally get on my nerves even when done right.

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.

Yeah, and their DLC is generally reasonable. Though note they released two major DLC campaigns. One month after release for the first and two months after release for the second. These would almost certainly have been created and mostly finished before release and were just waiting on a timer to be released themselves. But I think they're really smart about their DLC.

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

When fries are "included" with a meal, that means the price includes the cost of the side as well. This is why some sides would incur an additional charge.

As for being given fries for your loyalty, that is indeed them giving you something that you didn't directly pay for. Developers also do this sometimes for similar reasons.

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

That makes sense. If you buy a hotdog you generally expect the non-premium sides to be free (ketchup/mustard)and a company selling you the hotdog without telling you the condiments will be extra are being sleazy (seeing as I don't like hotdogs without them). But I don't know of many examples where that kind of important stuff is locked away except in free-to-play titles which I often believe to be evil unless done in very specific ways (such as having a reasonable price to buy the game in its entirety rather than only allowing nickle and diming me).

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Working as a programmer I can say I get the whole argument of cut off dead line and released for consumer use. There is a big gap for us with testing, setting up, and training(if it's a new product) after we finish coding. So I get that there is development after the core project is done (Hell that's what I'm doing now, core project is done I'm writing small programs to help with the setting up process and we don't even need the programs it's just nice to haves one offs).

EDIT:Also the guys working on Bioshock Infinite DLC seem to started after the game came out, and people are pissed they don't have their DLC for their season pass yet. So you can't win

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Here's how a dev cycle goes:

1. Develop the game. Test the game. Fix the bugs. Continue developing. Test. Fix. Finish/code-cutoff (the line when no more code can be added).
2. Then there's several MONTHS in which the game goes through certifications and packaging and shipping and all that crap. The developers can't edit the game or it'd have to restart the whole process. Here they either move to new projects, work on any necessary patches, or work on DLC.

So sometimes when you complain about day 1 DLC, you're just complaining that the dev team didn't sit on their asses after code cut-off. Heck, some developers finish their area well before code cutoff for the team and so are free to work on DLC even earlier.

Yes, I do have a problem with DLC that could have been included in the game. On disk day one dlc should practically warrant pitch forks and torches. But just because it's day 1 doesn't mean it could have been. You have to think about the cycle. It's silly to think that the developers should get to continue to pull a paycheck for months after code cut off without doing any work. They have to do something and DLC isn't a bad thing to work on.

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.

Agreed,I always laugh when a developer says they had extra time to make the Day 1 Dlc since the game has gone gold because it's usually a bullshit excuse.Like with games such a ME3 where the content was already on the disc that excuse does'nt fly when data miners can easily find the content on the disc itself.

That makes Day 1 Dlc completely dishonest because when called out on it the developer will come up with any lousy excuse to justify cutting content out of the game just to make more money.

I can tell you aren't a programmer. Just finished my last project and everything is done and ready on my end, and I finished a few weeks ago. We aren't releasing the product for another few months (testing and setting up), so between now and it's release I'm working on other side things for our product (and other projects). Same thing with game makers, they finished their product now it has to be tested/rated/certified/pressed/shipped. This can take a few months and someone can build DLC in that time to release.

 

[Lightknight]

Working as a programmer I can say I get the whole argument of cut off dead line and released for consumer use. There is a big gap for us with testing, setting up, and training(if it's a new product) after we finish coding. So I get that there is development after the core project is done (Hell that's what I'm doing now, core project is done I'm writing small programs to help with the setting up process and we don't even need the programs it's just nice to haves one offs).

EDIT:Also the guys working on Bioshock Infinite DLC seem to started after the game came out, and people are pissed they don't have their DLC for their season pass yet. So you can't win

Exactly. It is better to have the DLC than not to. No one loses for the DLC being available day-one as long as it wasn't just cut from the game for the sole purpose of making money off of it. The developers get more money from the DLC as more people are likely to buy it on day one and the people who want it can have it right away. The people who don't want it can just keep their wallets in their pockets and mosey on along.

Also Thrikeen made a good point about the possibility of certain sections of the game being edited out because they weren't ready. Perhaps these were too buggy to release or weren't finished or just didn't follow the flow of the game. If they're good enough, they polish them up/finish them and release them later. Complaining about that kind of DLC would be a lot like complaining about movies with deleted scenes or extended content.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about product development and I'm glad there's enough people here explaining it patiently enough.