[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Wed Feb 22 16:32:22 PST 2012

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?

I agree with Chris - I believe it's up to the discretion of the developer.
 The monetization strategy of a game is often designed at the proposal
stage and not simply as an extra last-second money grab, especially as game
budgets have increased lately; whether content is finished when a game goes
gold is immaterial if releasing that content wasn't part of the developer's
strategy, even if the content in question is actually on the disk waiting
to be unlocked.

On-disk DLC, even on day one, makes sense when you look at how online
networks are structured - I don't know what the pricing terms are for XBL,
but publishers have to pay for all the bandwidth they use on PSN.  Better
to have content on the disk that you can unlock later than have it live in
the cloud and take a financial hit every time someone nabs it - all the
more if you have costumes and such that people who didn't pay for need to
still see on other people.

I'd like to modify your pie analogy, Matt - rather than the game being a
pie, with sections being removed, we should perhaps think instead of the
game's *budget* being the pie, with sections being made up of day-one
sales, DLC sales, limited edition profit margins, and so on; the actual
size of the pie representing the cost to the developer/publisher that needs
to be recouped.

Without ways for developers to plan DLC and anti-used strategies - well, I
think you're going to see smaller pies than you're used to.

-J

(unrelated: how pumped are we for the new semester yeahhhhhhhh)

On 23 February 2012 07:59, Christopher Hayward <chris.f.hayward at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120223/0226d6dd/attachment-0001.htm>