[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Wed Feb 22 17:43:51 PST 2012

Glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks the entire thing doesn't make
sense.

It's this idea that people are obligated to content that baffles me. Just
because content is available, and just because you are purchasing a product,
does not mean you get treated to everything that product is able to do. You
don't complain about how some DVD's come with less content than others,
because that is why you pay a higher price for the added content.

I do like how they managed things with Mass Effect 2, however. It was a
really good idea to give people reason to buy new copies of the game since
you got the Cerberus Network access and a bunch of content with it. I think
that was a BETTER idea than only doing this DLC in the Collector's Edition,
because it's encouragement to buy a new standard copy of the game to get
access to the DLC you would otherwise miss out on or have to purchase
separately.

I think that system works really well. Sell your new games with codes to get
access to big launch day DLC and future DLC down the line for free, and for
people that buy used copies of the game - charge them an amount to get the
same access. It might be a bit harsh, but so is not giving the developer or
publisher any profit from the game they spent years working on, and the
people that buy new get added benefit for doing so.

Honestly, after working at EBGames again for the past few months, I'm not
sure how long the system is going to last. When I last worked (which was at
the end of last year, they've not had the money to pay for me recently) we
were having more people trading in their games than we did people buying
pre-owned games. It basically equates to EB giving away games for games that
simply are not being sold. The busiest periods with the highest profits were
when big game releases happened.

And with systems like Steam and Origin becoming only more popular, and the
Australian dollar buying at such a high price to the US Dollar, there's no
good reason to buy games at Australian retail anymore. Seriously, even with
a 15% staff discount, I get games upwards of $10 to $20 cheaper when I
import; shipping costs included. I don't even buy games from the game store
I work at anymore.

But that's another discussion entirely.

Bottom line being, I agree that Developers and Publishers are well within
their right to restrict access to content for numerous reasons.

Cheers,

-Matthew Dyet

Ph: 0466 726 206

Em: mattdyet at iinet.net.au

Web: http://twitter.com/#!/Diomades

From: pigmi-pigmi.org-bounces at lists.pigmi.org
[mailto:pigmi-pigmi.org-bounces at lists.pigmi.org] On Behalf Of Jetha Chan
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 8:32 AM
To: pigmi at pigmi.org
Subject: Re: [PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

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/b90b24c2/attachment-0001.htm>