In Another Castle: Downloadable Content

Recommended Videos

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
With the games industry quietly shifting to the $59.99 price point in an effort to try to "recoup the costs of expanding development teams;" game publishers and developers are constantly looking for new and innovative ways to grasp a portion of everyone's limited income. One of the most prevalent ways that these companies we all know and love are doing this is by offering "extra" content to their titles via download services or larger disc-based expansions. In some cases, this can be simple things like extra costumes or even different costume "colors" for a game's characters, while in other more extreme cases, this can be nearly a completely new game and story, merely set in the same world.

Hop in the time machine with me for a second. A while ago, quite a number of games had to "trick" us into playing them for extended periods of time. The inexplicable lure of extra characters, mirrored racetracks, "sound tests," alternate endings and rocket launchers with infinite ammo kept us punishing ourselves for hours on end to meet that seemingly impossible task of beating a game in a certain amount of time or a certain number of times. Games had to be developed from the beginning with quite a bit of extra content that realistically about 10-20% of the people who purchased the game would ever see; so from a business standpoint, developers were spending a ton of time (read: money) on creating content that wasn't "necessary" for the product to be enjoyed from start to finish for the "average" gamer.

Myself, being the most "average" of hardcore gamers; I admittedly have spent numerous hours peeking into every nook and cranny of a game purchase, while other games with equal amount of content sit quietly on a shelf trying desperately to convince me that I should ravage them like an obsessed neurotic ex-girlfriend with an overactive libido and abandonment issues. Sadly enough, my time is finite. To truly sink the obsessive compulsive side of my personality's teeth into a game, it literally has to make me feel as though it equates to a religious experience... something I've not really felt since the cartridge days. Much like DVD "extras," it takes a story or world I'm completely hooked on to want to experience it's extra special goodie-filled nethers, because let's face it, not all of us have the time (or the spare sanity) to try and avoid two-hundred lightning strikes.

So what if you could bypass all that, pay a fee in currency suspiciously designed to make you think you're spending less money than you actually are, and experience that content from the game's outset? What if there was some sort of optional way to get all the secret hidden unlockable weapons and costumes from the moment you PRESS START, rather than having to wade through hours and hours of repetitive time trials and pressing "x" on every pixel of every wall? Wouldn't that be great?

Well there's not.

What there is, is a mandatory fee that you have to pay in order to experience said content. Going away quickly are the days where your dedication and attention to detail will yield spectacular results, and what you end up getting for your $59.99 is the "basic" complete game, with all the trimmings sitting nearby in a locked glass case tantalizing you with things you could be enjoying if you would just insert your credit card into your game console. Fighting through every round with a "perfect" on the hardest difficulty won't get you those extra costumes, but about 1200 Microsoft Points will. Playing through the story without letting one single character die won't net you the secret unlockable character, but plunk down some extra cash, and you can have him/her/it ready to go before you even break the cellophane. Pre-order the game and you can even have something extra special... but be sure to pre-order it from the right place, as each major retailer will likely provide you with something different.

With some daring game developers now including "downloadable" content on the disc [http://kotaku.com/5492303/bioshock-2s-dlc-is-on-the-disc-to-keep-us-all-together] itself and basically charging you to "unlock" it, you have to start to wonder about the real price point of a "complete" game. While it's one thing to revive a game by offering extra content months to years down the road, to have "extra" content available right from the start, and to charge your consumer base for access to it, is quite a bold move that everyone somehow seems completely okay with. Imagine however, if you had to pay an extra $5-10 for access to the "Star Road" in Super Mario World, or had to pay $1.49 for access to each additional ending of Chrono Trigger other than the canon final one. How would we have reacted to this back when developers were including all this extra content for the price of admission? What if $4.99 gave you access to the extra "Red Mage" class in the original Final Fantasy or access to the "Colosseum" in Final Fantasy VI?

Wouldn't it be nice if we, as a gaming community, could reach some sort of happy middle ground with the developers we constantly shell out our money to? What if we could "work" for our rewards or buy them? Oddly enough, from what someone was telling me, though I have no first-hand experience... this is similar to the Farmville model. Supposedly, though it's making money hand over fist, Farmville offers nothing in the game for purchase that can't be unlocked through dedicated gameplay. What if games like Mass Effect or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 adopted a similar model? What if by getting all possible endings netted you a "voucher" of sorts for the extra character? What if getting to a certain status in Modern Warfare 2 gave you a code to download the additional maps? What if developers started rewarding dedicated gamers rather than punishing them by charging them as much as possible for the experience they love so much?

Sadly enough, it seems that gaming prices are not going to go down, and what you get for what you (initially) pay out will continually diminish as games get more "expensive" to make. While it would be nice to have the option to still unlock this "additional" content through repeated gameplay, in economics, it would make little to no sense to offer something for free when people are willing to pay for it.

In short: I blame you.

... and by you I mean me.
 

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
pretentiousname01 said:
Releasing dlc is good in most aspects. Brings more spotlight to good games. "Goty", editions are good for late adopters. Good for developers to get another little hit of money. To help them combat the used game market.
So would you support a system where downloadable content can be unlocked through excessive gameplay as well as paying for it? If you could go through some inane and ridiculously time munching tasks in say, Fallout 3 in order to get a voucher to download the Anchorage content for free, would you have done that instead of paying for it? I mean we're talking like some ridiculously skill/time oriented tasks that are obnoxiously difficult to pull off... would it be worth it?
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
I agree with the OP. One game that really got under my skin for their DLC was Dragon Age. It boggled my mind that the first time I go to my camp, there's a guy offering a quest which links me to a DLC page and asks for money to download it. I nearly threw the game out for that. Still haven't beaten it.

I really like the idea of earned and bought rewards. Even better if the earned rewards were (if applicable) slightly better than the bought rewards.

I pretty much refuse to buy DLC unless it's a whole expansion. For instance I bought the Broken Steel expansion for Fallout 3 and it was well worth it, but extra songs for DJ Hero at $2/each can suck my nuts.

I recently got BF:BC2 and I like their bonus for initial purchasers - that is, you unlock a couple guns and vehicle perks but if you were to sell the game, the 2nd hand purchaser would not have access to them. I have absolutely no problem with that.

I hope we as gamers can demand more from developers and speak with our wallets. Don't by DLC unless you really want it and it's worth it. Expansions? Sure! A new outfit for $5? Hell no. Screw that.
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,021
0
0
On the disc: FUCK. YOU.

Meant to be in the game, but never got that far: I'll pay, if the game was decent length without it.

Single Player DLC made after game release: I'll pay.

Map packs/multiplayer only DLC: Not anymore. Not paying for multiplayer shit ever again. EVER.

DLC Games, not full retail games for download, but games by smaller developers: Yeah. XBLA takes up a lot of my hard drive. As do a few indie games.
 

Sev72

New member
Apr 13, 2009
599
0
0
Back in my day these here DLC thingamajigs were called expansions, and we got these here expansions a year or so later for a bit less then the regular retail price. Of course we had to have our original games so the publishers were fine and dandy with slightly lower prices but now we gotta pay extra to get all the content they gave us on that thar $60.00 (+tax) disc.

In all seriousness yea some DLC sucks, but some is actually worth the money, looking at you Borderlands. The only way to get this to change is to stop shelling out for it, and that isn't going to happen so get used to it, its here to stay.
 

Delock

New member
Mar 4, 2009
1,085
0
0
I remember there have been three games that had a "pay-or-unlock" system. Blazblue, though it only allowed you to unlock 3 of the characters' super modes, that you would likely never use because it was way too cheap and I think not allowed for story or arcade mode. Soul Calibur 4, the weapons. And Tales of Vesperia, skill bonus sets, as well as unlockable costumes and special items, all of which you could just as easily work for. And I've got to say I respected that. People who don't want to sink hours trying to unlock those items can buy them, while real gamers people with time on their hands can.

Onyx Oblivion said:
On the disc: FUCK. YOU.

Meant to be in the game, but never got that far: I'll pay, if the game was decent length without it.

Single Player DLC made after game release: I'll pay.

Map packs/multiplayer only DLC: Not anymore. Not paying for multiplayer shit ever again. EVER.

DLC Games, not full retail games for download, but games by smaller developers: Yeah. XBLA takes up a lot of my hard drive. As do a few indie games.
I'd say most of this. On the disc, even though I didn't buy the game for that content I did buy the disc containing it. This is one of the few times I don't care if pirates crack the game, they shouldn't be making money off of me unlocking something on a storage media that has all the data containing it.

Also, I'd like to add that the only expansions I'll get are those that are almost $0.75-1.00 an hour in price. I know I don't normally get that price with most of today's games, but DLC needs to prove that it's worth giving to the developers.
 

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
Delock said:
I remember there have been three games that had a "pay-or-unlock" system. Blazblue, though it only allowed you to unlock 3 of the characters' super modes, that you would likely never use because it was way too cheap and I think not allowed for story or arcade mode. Soul Calibur 4, the weapons. And Tales of Vesperia, skill bonus sets, as well as unlockable costumes and special items, all of which you could just as easily work for. And I've got to say I respected that. People who don't want to sink hours trying to unlock those items can buy them, while real gamers people with time on their hands can.
Hustle Kings on PSN (It's a pool game) did a great and a terrible job of this. They have an in-game point/currency system which uses the winnings from your matches to purchase things like cues and avatars, etc. Everything could be "won" in game, but they also had a DLC called the "Time Saver" pack, which allowed you to get all that stuff for real cash instead. Brilliant... however; on the flipside of that, the in-game "chalk" that nets you advantages like better control or a longer aiming line, absolutely HAS to be purchased... you can't earn it in game. What this does it actually make it more of a "he who has the most money has the advantage" situation. That, and it's not unlimited, it's $0.99 per 99 uses. So you have to continue to repurchase it over and over. That'd be the equivalent of purchasing "special" ammo in Modern Warfare 2 that gives you an advantage over the competition. Total failure in my eyes.
 

Katana314

New member
Oct 4, 2007
2,299
0
0
If you stop buying it, they'll stop making it.
Obviously, people seem to really enjoy DLC. And not all of it is really so bad. Fallout 3's expansions seem fair enough. What I wish is that if we're being given an incomplete game, it wouldn't be sold for $60. It's apparently not worth that much.
 

Meggiepants

Not a pigeon roost
Jan 19, 2010
2,536
0
0
I've never really thought of DLC from this viewpoint, that those items one used to hunt down for hours now are being offered via DLC. I completely agree that these items, swords, outfits and such really shouldn't have to be paid for. Certain DLC Doesn't really fit into this model, though. Some DLC is quite substantial. I'm thinking of the Shivering Isles for Oblivion. It just doesn't compare to extra weapons or armor.

I don't see anything wrong with your model, in fact, I rather like the idea. Someone already mentioned Tales of Vesperia here but they did something similar. You could even buy levels in that game rather than playing for them, if I recall correctly.

Regarding Farmville, I don't think it deserves quite the rosy portrayal that you've made. I'm not trying to attack you here, but since you haven't played the game yourself, and have likely heard about Farmville from others who have, I just feel the need to elaborate on some points that Farmville players might not mention.

You say playing the game is all you need to do to earn stuff that would otherwise cost real world cash. True enough for the most part. You still need to coerce your friends into playing to unlock some of the good stuff. But otherwise, you don't have to give Zynga your cash to get the best stuff. You can just play the game a ridiculously long time to unlock all the best stuff, compared to someone who is willing to fork out cash in order to get that pink barn you always wanted.

But Zynga is actually getting paid by both types of players. Ad revenue supplements micro-transactions in the Zynga business model. This means the longer you play to get something, the more Zynga gets paid. The longer you play, the more you have to look at those constantly changing little ads down the side of the screen.

It's a small point, but an important difference between how Zynga is operating from the traditional console game. If console games could upload ads with all their DLC, they might well be free or greatly reduced in price. But not many people want to see an add for Cheetos on the side of their medieval castle in Oblivion.

The micro-transaction profit model Zynga uses is also a bit more insidious to me than the standard DLC model. Zynga makes most of its money on these micro-transactions. [http://www.industrygamers.com/galleries/industry-insights-success-stories-in-the-micro-transaction-business/2/] But only 2-10% of players actually spend money on the game. Which means to increase their profit, they have to get more people to play the game. So they encourage the player to harass their friends into playing the game by offering goodies, like bigger farms or special items only available to those who have lots of friends playing. I don't really want to see this model applied to console games, so I would not hold Zynga up as a good alternate example when talking about DLC.

I'm not trying to hate on Zynga or Farmville, I just don't want to see this model in my console games. As to your overall point, I agree. Cheaply developed DLC should be available by means other than flat out paying for it.