Poll: Witcher dev believes all DLC should be free as a thank you for not pirating
- Thread starter Spartan212
- Start date
This is mostly marketing. Valve always releases tons of updates for their games for free, but I don't remember them going around saying all DLC must be free.
The thing is CD Projekt has GOG and Valve has Steam. Both companies earn much more by selling games than by developing them, and they have surplus money to invest in making new games (of course, Valve is in a completely different scale in relation to CD Projekt).
Not every developer has the same luck. Developing DLC costs money and should be charged in most cases. I agree that publishers are going overboard with DLC these days, but in general if it cost money to develop, it should not necessarily be free. The developer and/or publisher may decide to give away DLC for strategic reasons.
Saying every DLC should be free when you're in a uniquely privileged position to do so does not make it true for everyone.
The thing is CD Projekt has GOG and Valve has Steam. Both companies earn much more by selling games than by developing them, and they have surplus money to invest in making new games (of course, Valve is in a completely different scale in relation to CD Projekt).
Not every developer has the same luck. Developing DLC costs money and should be charged in most cases. I agree that publishers are going overboard with DLC these days, but in general if it cost money to develop, it should not necessarily be free. The developer and/or publisher may decide to give away DLC for strategic reasons.
Saying every DLC should be free when you're in a uniquely privileged position to do so does not make it true for everyone.
Well CD Projekt RED has the strange situation of it's publisher (CD Projekt) being one of it's subsidiaries thanks to corporate restructuring.s0p0g said:
Free DLC is fine, but I'm also down with the idea of Buying Content Then Using It. Pay for the game, get the game, pay for the DLC, play the DLC.
Yeah, in most situations people respond better to a 'thank you' than a 'and you just watch yourself there, scumbag.'kman123 said:
If you are capable of making a rational purchasing decision, then paid DLC does not hurt you, and can only offer you more choices. If a game is not worth buying because they allegedly cut out content, then don't buy the game because it is not worth it. They would have cut corners anyways, all the DLC does is give you the OPTION of a full game. If the DLC is worth it then how can you complain that a company is offering new content for a product that you want and consider worth the money? Free DLC generates company loyalty, and is a wonderful, profitable thing. But sometimes, companies need to earn real money, not simply invest in goodwill.
All the DLC anger is is the result of looking through the distorted lens of video game pricing where a 6 hour game is seen as needing to cost the same amount as a 600 hour game. Games should be able to have a variety of prices at launch, much like how we have computers, phones, clothes, etc for a variety of prices depending on what went into the making.
All the DLC anger is is the result of looking through the distorted lens of video game pricing where a 6 hour game is seen as needing to cost the same amount as a 600 hour game. Games should be able to have a variety of prices at launch, much like how we have computers, phones, clothes, etc for a variety of prices depending on what went into the making.
That has been something I've been wondering ever since I read about this news post on Forbes. Why are people acting like this is something new?AC10 said:
Don't get me wrong, I love the people over at CD Projekt Red. They're one of the few devs that are clearly in the industry because they love to both make and play games.
However, free "DLC" isn't a new concept. Like you said, Epic Games used to do it years ago. As did Blizzard and other high-profile devs. Hell, Valve still does it with every title, especially Team Fortress 2. (200+ free updates and counting) So, while it's certainly great and refreshing to hear another developer herald the idea of free "DLC", it's certainly not as new and revolutionary an idea as people seem to be thinking it is.
Still, kudos to them anyway. They're one of the few developers out there who still want to reward "customers" instead of nickel-and-diming "consumers".
People who already own the game get the EE for free.Snotnarok said:
Edit: In fact, with The Witcher 2, people who already owned it not only got the Enhanced Edition for free but also an extra digital copy of the game.
Oh-hoh, well that changes everything. That's some crazy impressive dev love there, that's pretty awesome.RhombusHatesYou said:
Still have to check out the games as I keep hearing they're really amusing.
Edit: I suppose entertaining is a better word, derp.
I don't mind paying for DLC - what I would like is more Expansion Pack sized ones.Spartan212 said:
I never buy the small ones anyway - they're never worth it.
Now, if they wanted to make the small crap (extra guns? extra outfits? really?) free, and then release an extra campaign for money, THAT I could get behind.
So yeah - more expansion packs! If I like a game, then extending the gameplay for an extra ten hours is worth twenty bucks to me.
The SecuROM DRM was removed in a patch shortly after release. The DRM was only there to try to protect the game from being pirated before release, not to stop piracy as a whole.RhombusHatesYou said:
It doesn't matter where you buy the game, except for Steam itself, the DRM has been removed since long ago.
Exactly.tautologico said:
It's definitely true that much of the industry has gone "DLC mad" as-of-late, and continue to release over-priced, content-lite DLC packs simply to cash-in on the craze. However, this doesn't mean that all DLC isn't content rich or worth the asking price.
While I agree that some DLC should be free, especially those packs that are clearly nothing more than content left out of the core game or simply a handful of game additions, larger, more hefty content packs should have a price-tag. (a reasonable one) If only because, to design and code content on those sorts of scales; i.e. expansion pack scales; it takes a lot of time, effort, and money. This isn't something most devs can afford to do.
Hell, IMO, the deserve the most kudos for The Witcher 1 Enhanced Edition... they more or less rebuilt the entire game because it was buggier that a syphilic whore with a headcold... and then went on to add in improvements... all as an apology for the poor release state of the game and as a thank you for the people who stuck with it.Snotnarok said:
How many other devs would spend several months rebuilding a game and adding in improvements instead of just patching up the worst few bugs over the period of a few months then quietly dropping support?
Not that many.
There probably should have been more choices, but I didn't know how to go about it. What really constitutes the difference between "DLC" and "Expansion"? Obviously things like Shivering Isles/Awakening are true expansions and Lair of the Shadow Broker is DLC. Unfortunately there is a lot of grey area in between. Is there a time limit? Is 5 hours an expansion? 10? 20?Lunncal said:
I decided to just go with Yes/No because I felt the poll went in conjunction with CDP's quote. They are talking about what would be considered "DLC", not full fledged meaty expansions
I agree with Konrad Tomaszkiewicz's every word: DLC should be free, full expansion packs can be charged for. I can't believe it when publishers/developers get away with selling weapon packs and multiplayer map packs. Back in the old days (end of the 90's, beginning of the 00's), developers would make that sort of stuff for free, just so people will keep playing their game.
Piracy is going to stay in the near future, but I know people who stopped/reduced their pirating thanks to Steam. If game developers/publishers/sellers would see piracy as competition, rather than a reason to punish legitimate customers, it would be reduced significantly, not because DRM/DLC/Multiplayer.
Piracy is going to stay in the near future, but I know people who stopped/reduced their pirating thanks to Steam. If game developers/publishers/sellers would see piracy as competition, rather than a reason to punish legitimate customers, it would be reduced significantly, not because DRM/DLC/Multiplayer.