[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Thu Feb 23 16:28:31 PST 2012

Oh, by the way, please don't take this as a personal attack. A lot of
people think the way you do, and I had this argument with my housemates
last night as well.

Apologies if it came off as a personal attack.

On 24 February 2012 00:47, Eric Spain <parthon at gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem I have with this kind of nonsense is that it ties in with
> DRM and Publishers treating their Customers like crap. EA, Activision
> and Ubisoft, the ones behind this kind of stuff are not hurting for
> cash, that's for sure. They will happily fund a multimillion dollar
> game, then pull the plug right near the end because of bad prospects,
> then go ahead and make another sequel to another shooter.
>
> I wouldn't have a problem with it, except most DLC like this is
> created when the design/art team have nothing to do as the game goes
> into QA. It's more about the developer just making sure that money
> isn't wasted. Does the developer see a portion of that DLC income? I
> very much doubt it. If the developer, who worked hard to make the DLC,
> actually earnt more money, then that would be fine as well.
>
> When it comes to crippleware, I consider it the worst kind of move
> possible. The player already has bought the game, why not give him all
> of it; DLC shouldn't be game content. The game should be content
> complete, with DLC as an optional addon. I applaud the Mass Effect 3
> DLC though, because it's not part of the ME3 game, but part of the ME
> world. It intersects perfectly through enticing players with something
> they really want, but without crippling the game. Bravo to the Bioware
> for that one.
>
> The last argument is that this has to be the only medium that does
> this. If I buy a book, I don't have to enter a code for the last
> chapter, or buy it from the author directly. When I buy a movie, I
> don't have to pay for the extra scenes that come on the DVD. If I want
> to purchase or sell either of them second hand, I can freely. In the
> games industry the content producers treat customers like criminals
> and crooks one minute, then try and squeeze all the money out of us
> the next. If the games industry wasn't so focussed on the big hit, and
> launch-week sales, then they could finally focus on making great games
> that last. They ignore the long tail of games in order to shovel crap
> games in our faces and then try and force us to buy it.
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Christopher Hayward
> <chris.f.hayward at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess most of the time we're relying on publishers acting fairly in
> this
> > regard, and not selling us incomplete or hobbled content. There's not
> really
> > much we can do, other than not purchasing games that do this.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with being able to purchase things for real
> money, as
> > long as there's a way to get that thing, or an equivalent, without paying
> > for it. This, of course, only applies for 'full priced' games,
> free-to-play
> > being a different story altogether.
> >
> >
> > On 23 February 2012 11:44, kactusgames <kactusgames at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> For me it really depends. Is the game complete in feel in its entirety
> >> without the dlc? A recent example I think is the new final fantasy ends
> on
> >> at “To be continued” and you need to purchase the dlc just to get the
> >> ending. That is wrong and I can see why people would be upset.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately it seems to be more and more the case about not what is my
> >> art or entertainment, but what is the minimum we can ship that people
> will
> >> pay for, and then take the rest and bundle it as dlc. Its about
> >> monitization. I’m currently in the diablo beta and I can even see many
> of
> >> the choises being made less about making the game better and more about
> >> making the real money auction house more apealing and pushing the price
> up
> >> of items on it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Kam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: pigmi-pigmi.org-bounces at lists.pigmi.org
> >> [mailto:pigmi-pigmi.org-bounces at lists.pigmi.org] On Behalf Of
> Christopher
> >> Hayward
> >> Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 11:33 AM
> >>
> >>
> >> To: pigmi at pigmi.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Just to clarify, the market backlash I was referring to was the one
> >> regarding DLC involving obviously cut content. I can't think of a
> specific
> >> example, but Take2 and some absolutely forgettable game come to mind.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23 February 2012 09:43, Peter Chillemi <chillemi at internode.on.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with chris, but I think the notion of a market backlash is
> >> flawed.  Most gamers will jump at the idea of a boycott but time has
> shown
> >> again and again that they lack constitution and buy it anyway.
> Publishers
> >> will push boundaries on game monetization  as long as there is someone
> to
> >> pay for it.
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: Christopher Hayward
> >> Sent: 23/02/2012 8:00 AM
> >>
> >>
> >> To: pigmi at pigmi.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20120224/1e6c456f/attachment-0001.htm>