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.Pat Hulse said:Obviously that's possible, but I'd prefer having DLC as a viable business model for a number of reasons:Thanatos2k said: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!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.
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.
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).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?
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.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.
Why do you need them to play your game for months? You make a game, you sell it, they play it, they finish it. You get money, they get a complete experience, they become your fans if they like it to buy your next game, and they will tell other people who haven't heard of your game how good it is.Paradoxrifts said:Please.Thanatos2k said: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!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.
The only way to go back to them 'good old days' when your average gamer played the same game for months and months on end would be to pass and enforce a new law where everyone is only ever allowed to buy a single game on their birthday and at Christmas.
When you pre-order a product, you aren't buying the product, you're buying a story.
Arkham Origins has a season pass already? Jeez. When was that announced, I've pre-ordered the game because I'm confident about that purchase, but will wait until all details are revealed on that before getting. I just hope the game isn't having content cut out of it.ninjaRiv said:I preordered Arkham Origins and I don't regret a thing. I preordered Splinter Cell Blacklist and loved it. I did this because I researched the product, the companies and people involved and I know I already like the franchises. So preordering can be good for established companies with great names attached. Their products are available for preview, some more than others, and the research can be done.
Problem with Season Passes is, there's no product before you order it. It's all based on faith and trust. Even if you trust the people involved, there's still no product to examine and preview. So... Yeah, good video. Agree with a lot of it.
...Wrong. If you don't buy the season pass before DLC is out, you get the upside of seeing the DLC. That's it. There is no downside because they still sell the season pass at the discounted price after all the DLC is out.fluxy100 said:I stand by the fact that a season pass is an option, it is a show of goodwill from the purchaser to the supplier that they trust that the DLC will be good and they are paying them beforehand because of that belief. If someone doesn't want the season pass and decides that they want to wait then that is all and good, they get the upside of seeing the DLC but the downside of a higher price.
I've bought two.MDSnowman said:I've bought ONE season pass in my life. Bioshock Infinite... I LOVE that game and and currently slogging my way through in 1999 mode. However, when I saw the first DLC I nearly lost it. I liked the combat well enough, but in a game where you could travel anywhere in time and space thus opening up some amazing options for story based DLC they gave me combat challenges and recycled maps as arenas. It was an insult.
I'm holding out hope for the Rapture return DLC packs, but I thought they had beat that setting to death in Bioshock 2 so I'm still not especially thrilled.
First off, I was incorrect in my first point I forgot that for some strange reason Borderlands and other developers sell season passes after the DLC is already out, My mistake.mjc0961 said:...Wrong. If you don't buy the season pass before DLC is out, you get the upside of seeing the DLC. That's it. There is no downside because they still sell the season pass at the discounted price after all the DLC is out.fluxy100 said:I stand by the fact that a season pass is an option, it is a show of goodwill from the purchaser to the supplier that they trust that the DLC will be good and they are paying them beforehand because of that belief. If someone doesn't want the season pass and decides that they want to wait then that is all and good, they get the upside of seeing the DLC but the downside of a higher price.
Also Borderlands 2 is a season pass done completely the wrong way. They either knew they were going to make more DLC in the first place and intentionally held some of it back so they could still sell even more DLC to people who already paid for what's supposed to be the "get all the DLC" ticket, or they didn't know they were going to make more DLC in the first place but decided "fuck the few loyal fans we have left after the Aliens Colonial Marines fiasco" and made them pay full price for said DLC even though they could have given it for free or sold it at a discounted price to people who already bought the season pass.
I mean shit, look at Rockstar. I remember multiple free MP packs for Red Dead Redemption because they wanted to thank fans for making the game such a success. They COULD have charged for the co-op missions and that one skin pack, but they didn't because they aren't money grubbing assholes like Gearbox. And isn't all the DLC for GTA V's online mode supposed to be free? Before someone puts out that shitty "companies exist to make money" defense for Gearbox, so does Rockstar. The difference, as always, is in the approach. Gearbox is trying to make money by greedily milking their customers for all they possibly can and Rockstar is trying to make money by breeding loyalty among their fans so that they're all the more willing to buy their next game. One approach works better than the other, and it when it comes time that both Gearbox and Rockstar are asking me for $60 for their latest game, I'm going to give it to Rockstar because they haven't tried to brutally fuck me up the butt like Gearbox has between Borderlands 2 and Aliens Colonial Marines.
What was it Jim said in that reply tweet to the Killzone developer? Something about being naively optimistic? I think that's how I would have to describe anyone who sees the Borderlands 2 Season Pass bullshit as a good thing.