[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

[Christopher Hayward]

I hate the argument of "if it's on the disk I should own it, I paid for the
disc". It doesn't make any sense to me because you're arguing semantics on
transmission media. If the day one was downloadable, and not on the disk,
would you be happy now? Probably not. ( I can't see people being happy with
downloading a gig of DLC on day one, either. (See Catwoman DLC) ) So why
does it matter if it's on the disk? Because you 'paid' for it? Give me a
break. No, you didn't.

The fact remains, you don't actually have a right to all the content on the
disk, if they didn't tell you that the DLC is included with what you're
purchasing. I don't agree with the self-entitled nature of a seeming
majority of gamers, and I side with the publishers on this one.

On the topic of day one dlc itself, I don't think that developers actually
hold back content for DLC often. I think it's happened a few times, sure,
but on the whole, the content is stuff that gets cut for time constraints,
and gets completed between gold and launch, or is so trivial that it's
completed by devs and asset creators that are otherwise twiddling their
thumbs before gold.

Those few times the content has deliberately been carved out? I think the
market backlash has generally scared publishers from ever doing that again,
but the accusations will persist for a long time coming.

Also, on the topic of the 'online pass'. Sure, it doesn't make a lot of
sense for games like Amalur, where it basically meant the same as 'have
some armour', but for games like Battlefield 3? I can accept this. What
people fail to understand is that it costs publishers to even create an
'account' for you on today's "TRACK ALL THE STATISTICS" on the servers. Why
should Joe 'i got this second hand' Cheapskate get access to the online
game and cost the publishers money without kicking a little towards them
for compensation? Because the original owner already paid for it? That
money was burnt when the original owner played online.

Ultimately, no-ones forcing you to pay for these things. If
they weren't profitable, they wouldn't be doing it. You want them to keep
making games, right?

On 23 February 2012 07:11, Paul Turbett (Black Lab Games) <
paul at blacklabgames.com.au> wrote:

> This is all about publishers/EA getting money from the 2nd hand market.
> Whilst a reasonable number of people will buy the game new, many,many more
> will get a 2nd hand copy, for which EA & Bioware will not see a single cent
> - dispite sending millions to develop the game in the first place. DLC is
> quite profitable, so having "important" DLC is a way to get the people
> buying secondhand to give money to the developers.
>
> L8r Paul
>
>
> On Thursday, February 23, 2012, Matthew Dyet wrote:
>
>> So I’d be interested to hear what other developers here think of this,
>> since I think it’s an interesting topic.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Mass Effect 3 launches next month, and it’s recently been revealed that
>> there will be launch day DLC that you can purchase (or that you get for
>> free with the collectors) and its content is pretty important to the games
>> universe. Not necessarily important just to the story of Mass Effect 3, but
>> to the story of the Mass Effect universe as a whole.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> One of the arguments I’ve seen made (you can see the video I am referring
>> to here: http://youtu.be/Ri0vrJ-y2zM ) is that any game content that is
>> complete before the game is released should not be made into DLC, as that
>> then means the final product of the game is no longer complete. It seems to
>> assume that making a game is like making a pie, and for any launch day DLC
>> you are taking a slice of that pie out and selling it separately. Do you
>> see it like that, or do you see it more like launch day DLC being more like
>> a smaller pie you make and sell alongside the bigger one?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The Mass Effect 3 release day DLC is interesting, because it IS
>> important, but I am not sure it is important to the central storyline in
>> ME3 so much as it is important to the Mass Effect universe overall. But
>> because it was developed in tandem with the game, should it be required
>> content for the game to be ‘complete’? Is removing it and making it DLC at
>> launch detrimental to the game and leave the core game an incomplete
>> product?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I’d personally argue no, but I’m purposefully keeping this as neutral as
>> possible to start a discussion – not make a statement. I’m more interested
>> in hearing what everybody else on the PIGMI list thinks. Is the customer
>> obligated to receive any content you have available when the game is done,
>> or is it up to the discretion of the developer as to where, when and how a
>> player gets new content?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cheers,****
>>
>> *-Matthew Dyet*
>>
>> *Ph:* 0466 726 206****
>>
>> *Em:* mattdyet at iinet.net.au****
>>
>> *Web:* http://twitter.com/#!/Diomades****
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul Turbett
> Black Lab Games
> www.blacklabgames.com.au | www.twitter.com/blacklabgames
>
> _______________________________________________
> PIGMI mailing list - http://pigmi.org/ - pigmi at pigmi.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.pigmi.org/listinfo.cgi/pigmi-pigmi.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pigmi.org/pipermail/pigmi-pigmi.org/attachments/20120223/47f72009/attachment.htm>