The Day One DLC Trap

[Low Key]

With all the money Microsoft is raking in, perhaps the best move for them is to open stores like Apple did.

Then then could not only sell computers and phones with their OS's, but they could also buy used games from people and sell them second hand so publishers and developers can still make money. Plus, it'll give good competition to Gamestop not only in the used games department, but also in the peripheral department. Heck, they could even make money off of third party equipment that way.

It wouldn't have to be a lot of stores as they would probably lose money that way, but a few in highly populated areas would definately be beneficial in the ways I described above.

I don't think Sony is in a position to do such a thing, but they have a much wider scope of products, and they sell just fine in places like Best Buy. Maybe they and Microsoft could cut a deal so MS could skim a little off the top and give some of the second hand sales of PS3 games back to Sony as well.

Honestly, anything is better than DRM. And I don't care what kind of DLC is included when bought new. If the game is shit, I don't buy it. Besides, what about the people who buy games new after they have dropped in price? I can't imagine publishers and developers make a whole lot of money that way.

 

[theultimateend]

How deep does the developer cut into the base game? And how much do they charge for it if you've acquired the game second-hand or simply lost the account info? What parts of the game should be DLC? Perhaps some small unlockables? A side-quest or two? The final boss fight? The entire second half of the game?

In Mass Effect 2, the "free with a new game" feature is the Cerberus Network, which includes free content but also happens to be how you download any DLC. So, for example, a used copy of the game wouldn't be able to download the free Dr. Pepper helmets, and possibly paid expansions in the future (depending on how they get implemented).

On the other hand, color me apathetic. I rarely buy used games, as I know the developers get nothing for them, so this doesn't really impact me in any way other than academically.

The second the prices are fair I'll gladly buy new...in fact I almost demand it. I can't stand other people touching my stuff (I'm not greedy I'm just kind of like Adrian Monk...I have a thing with people touching my stuff...hard to explain).

My biggest problem is when companies ignore the fact that living is expensive. I understand businesses need money, employees need to get paid, and so on and so forth. But don't treat your customers like a paycheck, once you just start looking at numbers everything gets really ugly.

60 bucks probably isn't over the top for a really good game, Considering how much I've played borderlands it might be a fair price.

But I just can't afford that. If multiple companies come out with games at that price I'll be choosing only one and the rest lose out. However if they all cut their costs they'd get that sale from me. If there are 3 games, and 3 people, and each person can only afford the full cost of one game. cutting the cost to a third of what it is means (theoretically) all three would buy it.

Now sure you only make the same amount of money either way 60 bucks, but now you've got a larger demographic. So your expansions are more likely to sell as well. You've also got happier people because they get a good deal which helps them feel good about their purchase which makes them look less critically at your end product. I am MUCH more friendly about bad game design when the game is inexpensive. I've bought some fairly bad stuff off the playstation network but then I think "Well damn it was 5 bucks I can't be too mad."

The Pokemon Platinum Game Guide for instance is something like 600 pages, I got it for 13 dollars. Everytime I look at it I get a warm feeling in my tummy. Had it been a 40 dollar guide I'd probably just scoff at it.

Good deals and fair prices make people feel really really good. I'm even open for DLC if the pricing is fair or if the original game was awesome sauce. I very nearly bought the DLC for Borderlands (very very nearly).

To those who asked about the "she" thing:

Do Shale's personal quest. It explains everything.

I assume Shale was a she from the moment Shale kept giving me shit. I figured it was a reasonable assumption .

"Jeeze I'm trying to be nice and you are just stomping on my feelings...OH you must be female."

 

[The Random One]

Yes console players: Online activation can happen to you. Whenever I bring up online activation, some people will respond, "This is why I'm glad to be a console player."

Geez, was this directed at me? Because I said that exact same thing on a post to last week's article? Because if so, I'll let you know I'm a 360 player in Brazil, and there is no Xbox Live support in Brazil, so I can't have a Live account at all (there are some shenaningans to get an American or European account, but I don't do shenaningans). Therefore, any DLC content is off limits for me, even if it's a free download with a game I were to buy new, so thanks for rubbing it in my face, jerk.

If not, great article! Love your comics! Love you!

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

And your even more fucked if your like me and don't have your consoles connected to the internet, thus removing ANY possibility for DLC.

 

[Fearzone]

Just to add real quick, Playstation downloads play just fine when not hooked up to the Internet, so far anyway.

Otherwise, great points you make, and I wish I had read this article before buying Dragon Age Origins, which might have saved me from a role-player that is mediocre in every way except for its superficial veneer.

 

[Worgen]

I think mass effect 2 handled it better the dragon age, shale seemed cut but zeed and the normandy crash site both seem added and not really that great on thier own, just like you would expect form dlc.

Really tho what Ive always hoped would happen was companies would reward early purchasers, like say dlc comes out, an early buyer would get a code to access it for free or the game would identify when you first booted it up so you would have free access too it or something, day one dlc always just seemed like its a punishment like the article mentioned

 

[sgrif]

My view on what's acceptable for DLC is pretty damn simple. If a player plays the game, with no DLC, no downloads, no whatever, would that experience be worth the $60 purchase? As far as I'm concerned, if the product in the box is worth $60, they can cut as much as they want. Who cares if they cut 30 hours and made it DLC... As long as what's left is still worth the purchase.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I like how Valve release a lot of TF2 updates for the PC version. I have the console version, but I'm going to buy the PC version as well because of this.

I was listening to an interview with one of the developers of Mass Effect 2 on IGN's Game Scoop, and he said that they where hands off on the game by the end of November so it could be tested and approved, and the rest of the time until release they worked on the DLC.

 

[StriderShinryu]

This is a tough one. I do think that developers should be getting something from those used retailers, and if the way to do it is content that is free on a new copy of something and paid for on a used copy, then it seems on the surface a good thing. As said though, it really does depend on where the line is drawn.

Would I have been happy with DA:O without Shale? Sure, but Shale really does add a lot to the game (assuming you like the character, of course). I think the Shale DLC is what I would call a great place to draw the line. A real tangible bonus for buying a new copy of a game, but nothing that really breaks the game or makes it overly less enjoyable if you buy used and don't buy the DLC.

 

[ucciolord1]

I love how Stardock releases DLC that actually improves upon the game. Great article!

 

[Tears of Blood]

Hmm. I personally quite like day-one DLC. If it is from a developer that I trust, such as Bioware, then I have no problem with day-one DLC. (Though it is part of EA now, so maybe I shouldn't.)

And DLC has always been rather cheap. I make money, I can spare a few dollars for some extra content for my game.

The problem comes in when content is cut from the original game on purpose, then we have to pay extra for it no matter what. I can't think of any companies that have done this right off the top of my head, but if I were to find out about it I'd be enraged.

I mean, I suppose it's perfectly fair of them, but it's still completely backhanded. They are supposed to be making games because they love games and want us to have an excellent experience with one, not because they want to make as much money as possible!

So, maybe I am just a sucker. I dunno'. I want to believe the developers of some of my favorite games do these evil things, but I realize it would be naive to believe it unconditionally. I think I will wait for some serious proof before I decide to start getting enraged over this whole DLC issue.

 

[Helmutye]

Does anybody know how much game developers "lose" to second hand sales? I am curious as to the numbers, because unless second hand sales are more than the first hand sales the developers get I find this kind of behavior completely inexcusable, and wonder why customers tolerate it. Imagine if car companies only sold cars on the condition that you and you alone would ride in it, and would only accept massive amounts of your money if you jumped through a bunch of hoops and gave them all sorts of personal information to let them control who could ride in your car. And if you ever did carpool or give someone else a lift, they retained the right to kill your car and render it inoperable, or hamstring it so that you couldn't drive it more than 10 miles in a day. This is basically the arrangement game developers have established.

Why do we put up with this nonsense? Big developers seem to be making it the problem of their customers to ensure that they make record profits. Personally, I don't care if EA makes another ton of money. Their financial well being is not my concern. If their games are not up to my standards, I won't buy them. If they can't offer games that are reasonable in terms of weird license agreements and ownership issues, then they can go bankrupt for all I care. If they can't make the money they want in the games industry, they should find another line of work. And in my opinion, for all the money they spend on their games, I think they produce generally crappy material. Indie developers working for nothing more than love of the craft of gamemaking produce better games. Huge budgets are not necessary. I don't think the games industry would suffer in the slightest if giants like EA died and rotted into nothingness. Small studios staffed by people who love their job produce better games than soulless multinational corporations seeking billion dollar profits.

How hard will you work for games that consistently disappoint you? Stop being sheep!

 

[LordZ]

The people who try to defend day one DLC, especially on a game like DA:O, make me laugh really hard and then I want to punch them in the face for being so stupid.

Since it's the popular game to address about day one DLC, I'll go on about DA:O. The developers claim that Shale and the Storage box quest weren't ready for release when all the other stuff was. I call bullshit on this. I admit that I can't be 100% about Shale not being ready (though, I am extremely suspect about it). There's no excuse for having to remove the storage box from being next to the camp fire(which I'm reasonably sure is where it originally was) and then put it in some quest as DLC. If you've got major concerns that a storage box wont be ready in time for release, you've either got no talent hacks working on your game or you're delusional. Though, maybe, just maybe, they flat out lied about it not being ready and just yanked it out in a lame ass money grab. Oh no, Bioware would never do something like that to their fans! I should be crucified for such blasphemy, I'm sure. It's not like we're talking about a company that sold its soul to EA and promptly screwed over their fanbase with the weaksauce that was Mass Effect. For those who fail to see the sarcasm dripping from those last few sentences, you are the fools I'm making fun of.

DA:O would have probably restored my faith in Bioware, if they hadn't decided to screw over their fans with the day one DLC.

 

[TheGuy(wantstobe)]

snip

DA:O would have probably restored my faith in Bioware, if they hadn't decided to screw over their fans with the day one DLC.

I abhore day 1 DLC just as much as the next guy but you seem to be blaming the developer which does seem to care for the fanbase when you have the bloated evil mostrosity that is EA as the publisher that holds the purse strings and gets final say in what will be DLC or not. I mean it's not as if EA have tried to nickel and dime everything the possibly can for years before DLC was even thought of (see the sims expansions) is it? I think that the bioware team would have preferred to have all those things out of the box but their evil overlords are the ones who told them no.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Experienced Points: The Day One DLC Trap

Shamus discusses the muddy waters of DLC.

Read Full Article

I think the Day One DLC that got people angry wasn't so-much Shale as it was the Warden's Keep. $15 I think it was for one very short quest and a feature that should have been in the default game. Highway robbery, that. Frankly Shale is just a character IMO. It's a side quest to unlock him and I'm sure the game is 100% beatable without him.

Over-all though, I do agree with the article. DLC is just a sign of the times. Economy is in a crunch, and the video game industry is no different. So to try and eke-out that few extra bucks from the customers developers are starting to give us less game for the same money, then they go-on to release DLC which is usually over-costed when you compare the original game's Time:Cost ratio to that of the DLC. I know for sure that was the case with Fallout 3 where all 5 DLCs doubled your cost (or nearly doubled if you were a console player), but there sure as hell isn't twice as much content across all the DLC. It's like you bought 70% of the game for full price, then had to buy it "again" for the other 30%.

Edit: Also, I would like to degree from this day forth a new term: "D1DLC", or even "D1D" would be acceptable. Spread the word, my cohorts!

 

[saxybeast418]

Oh my goodness. To Shamus Young and everyone complaining about Day One DLC: when did you become so entitled?

I agree that the whole, "Oh, content X was not ready for release on Day 1" is a whole lot of marketing bull, but the notion that Dragon Age is punishing you for not buying the game new? Come on!

Yes, the in-game advertising for DLC is obnoxious as all get out. But to insinuate that they have surgically removed a significant portion of the game outright is absurd!

Say you bought Dragon Age used. No pre-order DLC, no DLC whatsoever. You would still have a game with a complete narrative, a ridiculous number of gameplay hours, items to collect, and infinite modding potential on the PC version (the only version worth playing).

Now, I know that the drawback of the Day One DLC is that if it becomes obnoxious enough, people will just hack the game, the DLC, or both. But the notion that Bioware is somehow punishing us for not buying the game new... this is patently ridiculous.

Fact is, for fans of RPGS, the completionist streak runs deep. This has been exploited ever since the days of Pokemon on the game boy. Bethesda and Bioware have been brilliant and shameless about this.

And you know what? I say more power to them. These games are expensive to produce, and they are competing with every single bloody shooter out there. These big RPG's are expensive. They take a long time to develop. They are harder to develop, and they are sold at the same price as every other game out there. They are even easier to pirate due to them being entirely single player affairs.

Bioware, Bethesda, and all the rest need to make money, and DLC is a great way to do that. It makes piracy harder. It encourages new sales. It helps cut into Gamestops gargantuan used-games market. This is a good thing for them.

And if you don't want it? Fine! Don't get DLC! You still have a massive, well-made RPG!

Edit: Just fixed a minor grammar error.

 

[Premonition]

DLC should only used for bonusses instead of activating or giving us large chunks of the game that should have been part of the game to begin with. or to download full games digitally rather than getting a copy. (Like Episodes of Liberty City. Now that is handling the DLC right. Offer it fully on both disc and download.)

But no, they have to nickle and dime us ...

 

[Mromson]

Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were all full games in their own right (I finished them all before any DLC was installed) and I can safely say that I don't mind this course of action. Neither games felt like anything at all was cut from them.

A person who bought either games second hand wouldn't notice anything missing.

 

[LordZ]

I abhore day 1 DLC just as much as the next guy but you seem to be blaming the developer which does seem to care for the fanbase when you have the bloated evil mostrosity that is EA as the publisher that holds the purse strings and gets final say in what will be DLC or not. I mean it's not as if EA have tried to nickel and dime everything the possibly can for years before DLC was even thought of (see the sims expansions) is it? I think that the bioware team would have preferred to have all those things out of the box but their evil overlords are the ones who told them no.

You're neglecting one minor detail here. Bioware sold out to EA. You don't sell your soul to the devil and get an all access pass to scapegoat the devil for making you do evil things. Whether Bioware wants to do what EA says or not, they willfully sold out to them and therefore deserve no pity and no get out of hell free card.

While I agree that the whole, "Oh, content X was not ready for release on Day 1" is a whole lot of marketing bull, but the notion that Dragon Age is punishing you for not buying the game new? Come on!

Congrats on completely missing the point. The point is that they crossed the line. They broke an ethical boundary in the pursuit of money. I wish I could say that treating your customers like morons and criminals would be a quick way to the poor house but EA has done a splendid job of it. People not only buy their inferior product but they buy all the little meaningless crap they nickel and dime you for. If people weren't buying it, EA wouldn't be making a killing at it. While it's true that this is just as much the fault of the morons who buy this crap, it's not like there's a law saying you have to be complete unethical bastards that only care about the all mighty dollar.

Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were all full games in their own right (I finished them all before any DLC was installed) and I can safely say that I don't mind this course of action. Neither games felt like anything at all was cut from them.

A person who bought either games second hand wouldn't notice anything missing.

You really make this too easy. I was just going to post an innuendo about you being their own personal whore but I'll make a real reply instead.

So, an NPC standing where your Stash should have been and begging you to buy the DLC quest to "unlock" your Stash is absolutely not an indicator that something might be missing? You're perfectly okay with a game that has entire sections cut out and replaced with an NPC begging for real world cash? Welcome to the future that you and morons like you are making possible.

 

[bjj hero]

Yes console players: Online activation can happen to you. Whenever I bring up online activation, some people will respond, "This is why I'm glad to be a console player."

Geez, was this directed at me? Because I said that exact same thing on a post to last week's article? Because if so, I'll let you know I'm a 360 player in Brazil, and there is no Xbox Live support in Brazil, so I can't have a Live account at all (there are some shenaningans to get an American or European account, but I don't do shenaningans). Therefore, any DLC content is off limits for me, even if it's a free download with a game I were to buy new, so thanks for rubbing it in my face, jerk.

Is that the trade off for having some of the best MMA gyms and football teams in the world?

This is a tough one. I do think that developers should be getting something from those used retailers, and if the way to do it is content that is free on a new copy of something and paid for on a used copy, then it seems on the surface a good thing. As said though, it really does depend on where the line is drawn.

I disagree. I bought my car and now own it. When I move on to a new car I will sell it with no plans to give Vauxhall any of the money I make from the sale. Likewise if the person I sell it too makes money from selling it on he/she will not be passing any of his/her profits to Vauxhall.

Why should games be different?