[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Wed Feb 22 19:45:42 PST 2012

Just on the topic of used games, I believe GameStop US was actually buying
pack-in codes from the publisher to put with pre-owned copies of the game.
I'd have to say, that would be a reasonably attractive offer.

In other news, bricks and mortar, and specifically games stores, aren't
going anywhere. I believe that most game purchases these days are done in
stores, and I don't think the big box stores here give a damn about games
outside of the major releases or holiday season, either.

On 23 February 2012 09:43, Matthew Dyet <mattdyet at iinet.net.au> wrote:

> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120223/41514cab/attachment-0001.htm>