Pat Hulse said:
Thanatos2k said:
Pat Hulse said:
I can't argue that Season Passes are generally-speaking a bad deal and consumers ought to be wary of them, but I don't think that publishers should stop offering them. Pre-selling DLC ensures that the publishers don't get on the developers asses about releasing the DLC sooner since statistically, DLC sells best right after release (source: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/16/eedar-consumers-have-greater-interest-in-dlc-a-month-after-game/ ). This is why on-disc DLC was such a common practice. With Season Passes, the publishers get to maximize DLC sales and the publishers get to take their time and do their DLC right.
You know, it is possible to release a game and not release any DLC. Imagine that, selling the complete game the first time and not having to worry about consumer interest waning in your game a month later - because they were completely satisfied the first time!
Obviously that's possible, but I'd prefer having DLC as a viable business model for a number of reasons:
1) Development time is hell and it's difficult for producers to find the right balance between focusing on fine-tuning the game engine and the mechanics and producing the actual content for the game. All too often a game will ship before it's ready because the developers were focused more on cranking out a large amount of content rather than perfecting the core gameplay. A DLC model makes it more economical to focus on quality over quantity.
I disagree. It's done the opposite - devs now are being split off from the main teams and shunted onto DLC development INSTEAD of perfecting the main game. Worse, console games are starting to acquire one of the few downsides to PC game development - the "we'll fix it in a patch" syndrome where the initial product is flawed and they'll fix it later (perhaps in a DLC!). Despicable companies like Capcom even have the nerve to include bug fixes and balance changes IN THE DLC, essentially charging you for patches.
2) Too many developers reinvent the wheel even though it's often unnecessary to do so. How many full-priced sequels end up just being recreated copies of the previous game with new assets and content? How many sequels could just as easily be produced as DLC for a fraction of the cost? Imagine instead of rushing out sequels every 2 or 3 years, developers just made one really solid franchise entry per generation and produced seasons of episodic content like "The Walking Dead" does?
Episodic content is episodic content - that's not exactly DLC - that's you buying the actual game in sequential pieces as it gets made, not buying the whole game and then getting extra crap shoved onto it (or pulled from it to sell back to you).
3) It theoretically allows developers to take more risks since DLC tends to be lower-investment. They can try out unusual ideas or test out different mechanics or give younger, less experienced (but often more ambitious) developers a chance to cut their teeth on something smaller-scale in the AAA industry, perhaps leading to more innovation in a perpetually stagnating high-budget industry.
DLC's been around a while now - when has this EVER happened? The closest I can see would be something like Far Cry Blood Dragon which is more of an expansion or mod than DLC. DLC never produces anything that is more innovative than the original game. Modders do - and that's free for everyone.