The Day One DLC Trap

wench

Braids of Fury!
May 1, 2008
137
0
0
Helmutye said:
*snip*
How hard will you work for games that consistently disappoint you? Stop being sheep!
I'll work more than hard enough to make up for the extra $5. I rarely play games that disappoint me, honestly. And while I could care less for EA, I really want to encourage publishers to keep paying people to keep putting out games like Dragon Age. That means that I will only buy some games new, and that I've got no problem with DLC - even Day 1 DLC. The Shale quest in DA:O was a perfect example of good D1DLC - it wasn't integral to the dwarven storyline, but it added more depth. I don't mind that the original game had marginally less story without it - it was a fantastic game either way.

I think it's a good compromise, and while the time:cost ratio is worse for DLC than the game itself, it's still a bargain compared to other forms of entertainment. If I didn't think it was worth it, I wouldn't buy it.
 

Chaos Marine

New member
Feb 6, 2008
571
0
0
While I mostly agree, I have to point out that Stardock allows you to sell your key to other players.
 

Assclown_King

New member
Jan 29, 2010
24
0
0
I first want to point out that, since we are all on the internet, very few of us, myself included, actually know what goes on in the development of a game, or the logistics involved in the business of selling said games. With the exception of the writer of this article, I am now typing under the assumption that nobody really knows what goes on inside the industry, so if anybody who reads this actually does know, either by being in a company that makes or sells games, and you are offended by what I'm about to say, I apologize.

The D1DLC thing might 100% be down to faulty programming on the initial product. Shale for example, might not have been able to work properly in the game proper, so they took the time to fix it, then release it on D1. As someone above has stated, Bioware stopped working on the game to give the testers time to find bugs and such. However, like in EVERY game in existance, some bugs either never get found until release, or can't be fixed until later. So, they work on the code to get the game (or in this case, a character) to work, and if they manage to get it fixed, find an alternative way of distributing it to the public. The Assasins Creed DLC is completely different, (I'm hoping, haven't DL'd it yet) as it is not integral to the plot. The game is 100% complete as it is, without the little extras. While yes, it was planned from the beginning (2 memories "corrupted", way to be subtle Ubi), it's not quite as harshly looked upon as the DA:O DLC.

I was going to bring up the used game thing as well, but someone above said it best with his car analogy. For me, without used games there are some series' that I would never have gotten into. I love Silent Hill because I found a used copy of the second game. Used games are a great way of introducing someone to a series they might not have had time to play / money to pay for at the time. I've bought every Silent Hill game new since then, so Konami has made their money back in spades for that purchase. What happens when certain games get discontinued? (AKA almost everything that Atlus puts out stops being in production soon after it's release), used game retailers actually allow you to find said games when normally they'd be out of your hands.

Also, lets take Assasins Creed for example. Once you beat it (and evidently it's subsequent DLC), that's it. Game over, nothing to see here. Places like EB and Gamestop allow people to get rid of their games while paying for others. I'm in Canada, so I don't really know any of the values in the States, but up here the values of the games tend to be pretty fair for what they give. I got 40 bucks for Creed 2, that's more than half of what it cost me... before taxes anyways.

Point is, there is always two sides to the coin. Sorry for the long post, just had to get it out there, and ... well, I like seeing my words :)
 

Gunner 51

New member
Jun 21, 2009
1,218
0
0
When it comes to Day Zero and even Day 1 DLC, I don't mind waiting a few extra days for the thing to be included with the disc. Which is where it should have been in the first place. Someone is ripping off punters by charging full whack for what is nothing more than an INCOMPLETE product.

If the devs / publishers decide to release some DLC (as an add-on) six months down the line - then that is fair enough.

But people should take a stand against being ripped off like this and stop buying Day 0/1 DLC. But that's just my two penneth worth.
 

Mromson

New member
Jun 24, 2007
125
0
0
LordZ said:
Mromson said:
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.
That is one instance which I don't accept. Simple ads in the game launcher, sure. But bland in-game advertising is just annoying. That said, I never stumbled upon said NPC until the DLC was bought and installed.

But I see nothing wrong with telling the costumer "hey, we haz moar content here, clicky!" If I'm satisfied with the game I'm more than happy to pay for additional content. If I'm not satisfied... Well, there are other ways to get DLC...
 

Azure-Supernova

La-li-lu-le-lo!
Aug 5, 2009
3,024
0
0
Personally I'm happy with either method. I buy all of my most wanted games brand new, the only second hand games I'll get are either for my Wii or a last generation console. I just love my PS3 too much to let it taste a second hand disc.

I need to get out more.

But on the point of the article, there is that fine line between the two. But no matter how much gamers complain, most of us will do what we can to get what we want. Rewards and restricted content alike.
 

Jaebird

New member
Aug 19, 2008
1,298
0
0
Full side-missions or extra content that were created long after the game is released are fine by me. That just shows that developers want you to keep playing their game. DLC that allows the viewing of nipples? A simple texture change? Essentially $3 for a different skin... What a load.

It's sad to see game developers aim for the lowest common denominator just to make people buy their games and the pointless DLC that goes with it.
 

afaceforradio

New member
Jul 29, 2009
738
0
0
I do agree with this article, DLC can be very sneaky stuff.

On a slightly OT note: Shale is a 'she'? I didn't know that!
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
bjj hero said:
StriderShinryu said:
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?
But you can still sell your games and reap all of the profits for yourself. If the game developer doesn't do it with too heavy a hand, the person who buys your game will still get a full experience with the option to purchase the additional "missing" content for a small fee.

This is a move by companies to create a secondary market essentially in reaction to stores like GameStop selling numerous used copies of games for only $5 or $10 cheaper than a new copy sells for. Faced with this decision in the past, a large portion of people who purchase the game would take the $5 or $10 dollar savings and the entirety of the purchase amount would go nowhere but the retailers pockets.
 

Lorechaser

New member
Aug 28, 2004
80
0
0
I actually think the Mass Effect 2 method is brilliant.

You can resell the game all you want. But getting the DLC network is $15. So someone can buy it used, and play the base game. And then spend $15 to get the DLC when they want it, making it *more* than new most likely. But if you don't care about DLC, you're gonna get a good deal.

I have 0 problem with that. I think it's a clever way of fighting piracy/used game purchases, which are minimally invasion to the market. It does disadvantage the used console game buyer, but only as long as devs aren't *complete* jerks about it. ME2 you lose a bit, and don't get new stuff. If, as Shamus mentioned, it were a large portion of the game, I'd have an issue.

And, of course, being that it's video games, it will be eventually. But I'll take this over SecuROM, 5 activations, systray cruft, etc. (Amusingly, the spellchecker doesn't know systray, but it knows cruft).
 

Salonista

New member
Nov 11, 2008
13
0
0
Perhaps I'm simple-minded, being a 'buy new' type, but this 'devs don't make anything off of used games' concept needs to be taken out back and shot.

Why should they?! A serial is a serial, one product = one sale. Films/TV series get bought on DVD and passed around (or viewed by others in addition to the purchaser), and while I'm sure they'd salivate at the chance to make each viewer purchase then view in a locked room by themselves, it's just a preposterous idea that will never work. Because one product = one sale.

It makes no difference to devs whether I use it or I finish/tire/bore/move on from that game and pass it along to someone else and they use it. They made their money on that sale already; change in ownership of the serial means nothing, it doesn't suddenly become a whole new serial because a different human is using it. If I don't have it to use anymore, that means I've likely gone and bought something else new.

Why don't they turn it around and look at what a used game *brings* them? Like new paying customers? I'm so tired of this victim mentality from folks churning huge profits (the publishers anyway) year after year...how many school districts could EA's profits fund - even in down years? I'm not saying they should fund school districts, merely making a vague numerical comparison.

I dunno. I've always been a paying customer, so I don't get it, this need to try to trick me into spending more to use something I've already bought (in the case of paying to unlock what's already in the code I got for that purchase). As someone above said, pubs should have a serial transfer system in place, a trade-in market of their own, to give retailers that they need and hate simultaneously some competition in the pre-owned games space.

I have to wonder if the profit differential would be better if instead of nickel and diming they'd drop game prices a bit. Sell more at 40 bucks (necessary full game) or sell less at 15 (optional DLC)?

Video game purchasing isn't easy or impulsive anymore for me, as it used to be. I buy less and less due to installation hurdles or DRM or value decreasing procedures put in place by producers. Do they not ever *purchase* these products as they expect us to do?

Gah. Sorry for ranting, but I feel quite left out of a favored pasttime anymore. I can be flip with my money, but too much critical thinking and that wad tightens up quick. Nice article, Shamus. And also the previous about how many apps you need to run one game. My answer: ONE - the damn executable! ;)
 

YurdleTheTurtle

New member
Mar 23, 2009
172
0
0
Virgil said:
Shamus Young said:
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.
Just wanted to let you know, there will be paid-for DLC that is bought outside of the Cerberus Network (Ex. XBL Marketplace, etc.). So even if someone is not in the network, they'll eventually be able to buy new DLC. Cerberus Network however does offer some exclusive DLC that will either never appear on other markets or is a timed exclusive.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
Salonista said:
Why should they?! A serial is a serial, one product = one sale. Films/TV series get bought on DVD and passed around (or viewed by others in addition to the purchaser), and while I'm sure they'd salivate at the chance to make each viewer purchase then view in a locked room by themselves, it's just a preposterous idea that will never work. Because one product = one sale.
I do understand what you're saying, but this isn't really a fair comparison. Films and TV already have a built in secondary market. Films, generally, start in theaters to make their money there basically on ticket sales and then are released on DVD to make money there as well. TV shows are first released on TV, paid for by the networks and advertising, then are released on DVD to make money there as well. Games are released on store shelves and.. that's it.

I am, however, in total agreement with you when it comes to pricing. If games were priced more realistically to begin with, the used retail market would be decimated almost by default. Have lower prices initially, or at the least lower them 2 or 3 months after release, and continue to lower them based on demand. Either that or, as you said, use some sort of DLC strategy to supplement a lower initial cost (as long as it doesn't mean when you're buying a game you're only getting half of it).
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
Whichever way you cut this, it's just absolute bollocks. Can you imagine the furore that would erupt if authors got together and tried to wipe out the secondhand book market? If Stephen King engineered his next novel so that a major plot twist was left out of the book; and only available if you went online and entered a code you received when you purchased it from Borders?

Games developers are a whiny lot to complain about the secondhand market. Here's a hint though; maybe if you stop making cutscene heavy, graphically intensive corridor games with about ten hours of gameplay and absolutely no replay value, which you expect to sell purely because they're a sequel in a big name franchise; and instead make some games with actual depth - then perhaps people wouldn't simply trade the game in as soon as they're finished with it.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
I don't know about you guys, but I'd much rather play Dragon Age without Shale, than a Galciv2, forever stuck at bugged version 1.0.

The Stardock model isn't all that much better than the bioware/EA model.

Now if GC2 and other stardock games had all been thoroughly tested and fixed out-of-the-box, that would be something else, but right now those patches are more important than some day1 DLC character.
 

Byers

New member
Nov 21, 2008
229
0
0
A good start to get more people to pay full price for your games would be to reduce the prices. Perhaps if one didn't feel the need to have the National Symphony Orchestra play your theme music, or hire Martin Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland and Mickey Rourke to voice throwaway characters in your game as a promotional stunt, you could price your game a bit lower than $60 plus DLC. It's not like there aren't perfectly good voice actors outside of the Hollywood elite.
 

Darmort

New member
Mar 16, 2009
230
0
0
LordZ said:
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.
You know, I didn't notice him until I'd bothered to get Shale over halfway through the game.

Personally, I don't care about DLC. If I get it free, fine, I'll have it, if I have to pay for it then unless I want it, not bothered about it. DLC is kind of like an expansion pack... only more shit.
 

zBeeble

Doublethinker
Nov 19, 2008
32
0
0
Just to reboot the conversation, I really divide games into two categories right now in my mind, and both are doing quite well, thank-you.

The first is game's that I'll pay full freight for. These are games I'm not going to ever let go, either. Games like Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 1 and 2... and Dragon's Age. Games that I generally preorder and possibly even shell out for the deluxe pack to get extra stuff (different conversation). These games I know I'm going to enjoy and treasure. Games I know I'm going to spend 100+ hours with. So worrying that I can't resell the game isn't an issue at all to me.

Then there's games that I'm not sure I'll enjoy. I'm less confident in their publishers or I'm less confident that I'll like their gameplay. Over the last year or two, Steam and belatedly the other download services have been good sources of these. Bioshock (which I picked up for $5) was a surprise gem... as was Evil Genius (Again $5, I think).

If I were to use the used game market, it would be to experiment with games I would not buy at full price. But the sales online give me a way around that that the publishers sanction.

Maybe the real odd man out are the game stores. Maybe they don't have a place. It seems that retail can't understand the type of sales the industry would run and that the buyers would buy. It's not used games that we want, it's cheaper games. I'm OK with not reselling my game if it cost me $5. Steam sells most games in one-day sales for $5-ish or $10-ish less than 1 year from launch. Reference Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, etc.
 

lyfeindeyth

New member
Jan 3, 2010
65
0
0
300lb. Samoan said:
Reminds me of the XBox 360 TF2 debacle - Valve has always released updates to the PC version that refine the gameplay and add extra items for the player base's enjoyment, but Microsoft refuses to allow distribution of these updates without charging x-amount of MS Points for them. So console players have a worse position: either accept DLC as the way things work, or be stuck with the Day One version of the game (which in TF2's case is very bad news.)
I remember seeing TF2 for the first time on the PC, the updates were astounding and I could barely touch TF2 on my console without thinking about all those *free* updates that Microsoft refuses me...

Is this a reason why the console TF2 servers seem to be dead?