Why is Day-One DLC Such a Big Deal?

[Deshin]

Because DLC is supposed to be content "added" to the game, not content purposely "taken" from the game to be sold seperately. On the disc DLC is an even bigger smack to the chops because it wasn't "We finished this content after making the final version so didn't have time to put it on the discs for shipping." It's just literally "We made a full game then decided to cut bits out of it so we could sell it to you for extra because we just decided we want more money.

It's a bad business practice and it needs to go away.

 

[ElPatron]

Chose one or several:

"Hahaha! You did not buy the full game!"
"Hahaha! It cost us almost nothing to produce and we did it on our free time, and you will pay 1/6 of a full game for it!"
"Ahah! This is worse than fanfiction and we will charge for it" (I don't remember which game had this, but it was awful)

These days, all DLC is commonly planned for AAA titles before a game even goes into full production. Why does it bother you people so much that, after the vast majority of the game was complete, they start work on DLC that was planned out years ago, and why is it any different from DLC released post-launch? The people that worked on From Ashes were probably first involved in a different project, or on a portion of Mass Effect 3 that was already completed.

>2012
>still believing in what anyone involved with EA claims

Yea, I agree with you OP. It's planned and it protects their business. It's smart business, which is why the people making these decisions get paid a lot of money to do so. It protects against trade-ins because people want to hang on to their copy of the game to play them and people will pay for it. What's the downside?

The downside is less freedom for the consumer, specially when it comes to trade ins.

But of course, we prefer to protect big corporations.

People should realise that the alternative to paid day 1 dlc is not a free day 1 dlc. It is no day 1 dlc at all. A big company like Bioware is not going to waste its resources on something that does them no good at all. The team who made the dlc would be assigned to some other project instead.

And honestly I would prefer to see that project than day one DLC. Or not spend those resources at all. Both are preferable to day 1 DLC.

 

[Mayhemski]

I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that DLC day 1 or otherwise is the creators prerogative. The pricing for it would be for them to decide as well. And if it's to expensive the market won't take it.

When Dragon Age Origins was released I got the Shale DLC but not Wardens Keep - why I read what Wardens keep was and that it's main advantage seemed to be a chest to store items at camp I decided no I didn't want the content, it added nothing to the experience of the game for me. I wasn't angry or left feeling exploited I just made that decision as rationally as I could.

Also day 1 DLC added for those who pre-order and then made available to everyone is a good thing surely? I am very hesitant to buy any game on launch as the curse of a buggy launches is a big risk (particularly with PC gaming as that's my current only platform I game on). If I am pre-ordering a game I know I'm taking a huge risk and if developers and publishers acknowledge that with some content for me as the buyer then good on them. Now if the game comes out and it's broken or buggy then fine I'll be angry and disappointed and I sympathise with anyone who feels let down and frustrated in those circumstances.

The big issue with DLC is more maintaining access to the content after release, especially with the digital distribution model that is now becoming prevalent.

 

[Vegosiux]

Sorry, but I'm really not getting the huge outcry over the Mass Effect DLC. Why are so many people surprised that a games publisher wants to make money? That's what they do, that's what business is. It's how they keep going and putting out more games.

Good to know that I can spend an outrageous amount of money in my business then blame the customers if I don't get a positive quarterly report, or try to charge them extra for what they already bought, because those self-entitled bastards refused to pay what I wanted them to pay. Seriously, this is about consumer rights, this is about not being ripped off. This is about expressing a negative attitude toward things that need to be evaluated negatively - business practices that seek to milk people of extra money without actually doing anything extra to earn that extra money.

Yes, birds fly, fish swim, people sit on chairs, businesses want to make money and all that, but you know, a positive report isn't just about squeezing as much as you can out of people without caring to do your own part. And if a bird flies into an airplane engine I'm not going to chastise the pilot.

 

[Dogstile]

If they want to release day 1 DLC fine, but that raises the price of the "full" game so they need to lower the retail price but will they? No. Will people still buy it and make these damn arguments about how it is totally fair and not them just finding a way to raise the price of games? Yes.

Am I saddened by this. Yes I am.

See that that right there that attitude like you're somehow "better" than others cause you see the so called "evils" that a company you have no idea what they are like.

Here's how it works.

For people who had no interest in Mass Effect, the mass effect universe, or bioware games in general will HAPPILY jump on the forums and crap all over everybody for the sake of being right and then claim "I'm not going to buy the game because company blah blah blah does dumb shit" when they themselves weren't going to fucking buy the game anyway.

People who want to play the game knew DAY 1 they were going to buy it or not and nothing is and wasn't going to change that.

Did you all get bored of the console wars and just felt like you have to fight over something else?

*Hearty laugh*

I love being living proof that people are wrong. I'm not buying it. This was after slogging through mass effect 1 & 2 twice before they decided they wanted to be pricks about the games DLC. Hell, it was even getting ridiculous in the second one.

 

[JambalayaBob]

well whats stopping them from including it on the game disc in the first place if they can be able to make it available on day one of the games release? AND the asking price for DLC already adds to the price of the game, so even if you buy used and you buy all dlc plus the online pass you probably end up paying the same amount if you bought the game new. and more. basically what I'm saying is online passes suck balls and DLC is way to expensive.

The online pass is complete bullshit for sure, and that's a whole different issue. However, you're thinking about DLC the wrong way if you think that they're adding to the price of the main game with this. They didn't decide "Hey, let's take out this quest and sell it as DLC!" This was planned out at least a year in advance, as evidenced by the leaked voice clips we all know about, but just because they had started work on it a while ago doesn't mean they sacrificed time with the main product either. They probably did all the voice acting work within 2-3 months or so, including voice acting for other DLC that we don't yet know about. Basically, by saying that they should have made this piece of DLC free, you have to say that they should have made all the DLC for the game free, because a lot of the planning took place before the game hit store shelves. It's a bit arbitrary to say "Okay, it's fine to release this piece of DLC a month from now, but you have to at least give us the bullshit illusion that you only decided to make it after selling the original game!" In fact, if they did release this piece of DLC a month from now, or in just two weeks, almost nobody would be complaining, even if every other circumstance was exactly the same. That's at least how I see it.

Btw, although this post is only a response to one individual, it lends itself to be directed at many other people who have commented here.

 

[Freechoice]

That's why.

 

[Thoric485]

Because there are companies that offer a better service without begging for cash.

Yet they don't get a place in the spotlight, since they don't amount for 50% of the escapist/gamespot/IGN's ad revenue.

 

[Poomermon]

Apparently about 40% of the people who bought ME 3 also bought the DLC. Source: http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/2012/03/09/mass-effect-3-sells-890000-north-american-copies-in-24-hours/ . Just get used to this or be prepared to be butthurt for the foreseeable future.

 

[Jfswift]

I think it's just the labeling that bugs me the most. If a game is marketed as a special edition and cones with some dlc I don't mind but if a game is released and the coding is already there for the dlc stuff but they want to charge extra I find that annoying. It's mostly psychological with me. Tbh though and I stated this before. As a consumer why would you want to pay higher prices?

 

[RagTagBand]

I don't have any problem with day one DLC. If it costs more than I believe the experience is worth then I won't buy it and I've yet to see any DLC which is "You have to pay extra for even if you buy the game new" and is 100% necessary for the plot.

It being on the disk is irrelevant.

Gamers who think that every superfluous mission and piece of content are owed to them are also irrelevant.

DLC, in my view, is the equivalent to "Deleted scenes" in movies.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Didn't read big block of text... paragraphs man, paragraphs.

Anyway: production realities aside, Day One DLC just makes people feel like they're getting ripped off. It makes people feel like they're not getting the complete game. Even if the content was always planned as an addon rather than integral to the game, consumers don't know--or won't believe--that.

It just feels bad. I think people would mind it a lot less if it was just delayed a while, a few days, a week, something like that. I bet a lot less people would complain. Heck, if they delayed it and made it bigger thanks to the extra time, even less would complain.

This, mostly. The name "Day 1 DLC" easily invokes the image of cash milking for various reasons. There are so many people who believe that content was cut from the game just to sell as Day 1 DLC.

Delaying it for a bit may or may not help. If one goes for the idea that games make the most profit in their first two weeks on the shelf, would the announcement of DLC a week later sell a copy? Would the non-announcement of the DLC on Day 1 hurt sales? I can't say.

Making it bigger might also be a touchy point with a certain crowd. Some may say that since it's so big, the players should deserve to play it as a rule or something. The recent issues within the industry seem to have brought up a few people who seem to feel entitled in one way or another. I'm not saying that's for sure though. Still, the Shadow Broker DLC was pretty damn big and kinda important. The Arrival DLC was kinda "meh" personally but is really important apparently. Those brought up complaints, even though they came so late into ME2's life. Overlord might be the best one in terms of business model. A reasonably big and interesting, but non-essential (as far a we know), story.

 

[Ironbat92]

Honestly, after playing the Day one DLC of Mass Effect 3, I can say that it was blown out of proportion. It adds fuck all to the story, and it's just like a recruit mission in Mass Effect 2. people just thought it was gonna be Bioware and EA's way of trying to screw everyone, when it doesn't. I don't know what dark magic EA uses over it's games that turns consumers into insecure trolls, but this and the who the Gay Shepard BS and the ending controversy is making the Mass Effect fanbase looks just as bad as Battlefield fanboys, and starting to make them go to the depths of idiotcy where only the Sonic the Hedgehog fan base lingers.

 

[Yopaz]

If they want to release day 1 DLC fine, but that raises the price of the "full" game so they need to lower the retail price but will they? No. Will people still buy it and make these damn arguments about how it is totally fair and not them just finding a way to raise the price of games? Yes.

Am I saddened by this. Yes I am.

No, this is not how it works at all. You get the game for the same price, but you get a portion of the game that is DLC. For the same price. I haven't seen any game being released at a higher price because there some extra DLC added in it. Maybe you should consider your retailers rather than your publishers?

 

[Atmos Duality]

I find Day 1 DLC to be a ripoff.
The Cost : Content ratios are often heavily skewed (DLC on average costs about twice as much per game-hour as the regular core game), and overpriced for what they're asking for.

But the justification for why it's done: People will buy it.
Ignorant people who don't run the numbers, but the fact that any consumer is thinking about those concepts at all is a rarity. (And I study them for fun.)

Still, I lament how games aren't sold as complete packages anymore. The true cost of the game can (or has) approached over twice what you see for it on the shelf. And that's just DLC; not the endless mire of Gaming Hell that is the Zynga Method, or any "Pay2Win" system where you keep funneling cash into the game just to sustain your success.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Here's my view.

Day 1 DLC is:

1. perfectly fine if it possesses two of the three following qualities: it is entirely non-essential to the core game, reasonably priced (in the case of Day 1, which means new, "reasonably priced" means "free"), and developed outside of the production of the main game. (Think Mass Effect 2.)

2. acceptable even if a portion of the data is already on the disc to lessen the download size.

3. fucking slimy if the "DLC" is entirely on the disc and the developers are just trying to squeeze more money out of you. (Street Fighter X Tekken)

this, especially if it's given to you for free when you buy a new copy instead of used.

as long as day 1 DLC is either free with new copy, or if it's REALLY that big/spectacular, then i might consider laying down 5-10 bucks for it...but that generally has to be proven with reviews and such first.

 

[JambalayaBob]

I find Day 1 DLC to be a ripoff.
The Cost : Content ratios are often heavily skewed (DLC on average costs about twice as much per game-hour as the regular core game), and overpriced for what they're asking for.

But the justification for why it's done: People will buy it.
Ignorant people who don't run the numbers, but the fact that any consumer is thinking about those concepts at all is a rarity. (And I study them for fun.)

Still, I lament how games aren't sold as complete packages anymore. The true cost of the game can (or has) approached over twice what you see for it on the shelf. And that's just DLC; not the endless mire of Gaming Hell that is the Zynga Method, or any "Pay2Win" system where you keep funneling cash into the game just to sustain your success.

So you hate all DLC? Well, I don't agree with that, but at least, unlike most people here, you're actually consistent in your beliefs. I'd say that it depends on what game it is and what DLC it is, that makes this argument hold any water. It takes many, many hours to beat just one RPG, but it takes a few hours to beat a Modern Warfare single player campaign. At the same time, many people who buy CoD every year play that game for far more hours than someone would ever take on one or two run-throughs of a Mass effect game. Honestly, it seems like the value of an individual dollar per hour varies drastically when you simply move from one genre to another. It even takes on a whole other dimension when team size and budget decides the base price of a game, since many people payed 10 Euros for Minecraft, but will play Minecraft more than any other game/toy in their lifetime. AAA games generally have far too big teams for their own good, which keeps the bloated 60 dollar pricing for games the norm, while simultaneously making teams STILL suffer layoffs after selling millions of copies of a game. Downsizing a few big projects will probably make the industry a much better place for everyone in the coming years.