[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Thu Feb 23 18:37:11 PST 2012

So in future, I think that like DLC, you're going to be dumb to plan a game
without user generated content.

How does this relate to DLC? Well, one of the oft-cited reasons for the
lack of modding or mapping capabilities is so that they can sell DLC to
people instead. I think this argument is stupid, as even in powerful
editors such as Forge 2.0 in Halo:Reach or Far Cry 2's map editor, you
still can't create quality maps like those provided by DLC. So you can have
both. And nothing says you can't sell people DLC packs of items for your
level creator :D

On 24 February 2012 10:32, Christopher Hayward <chris.f.hayward at gmail.com>wrote:

> That's certainly a different angle on the same core idea, which I think
> comes back to this - control of the content.
>
> Gamers, especially PC gamers, for years enjoyed unprecedented control over
> what was in their games. Apart from some easily-dodged cd keys, you could
> do whatever the hell you wanted in a game, and nobody cared. Now controls
> over game content are a lot tighter (for many, many various reasons).
>
> I think, at the core of it, it's the loss of control that people don't
> like. (also explains TF2 and Minecraft's popularity)
>
>
> On 24 February 2012 10:12, Bodie Hartley <bodieh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does this remind anyone else of the garbage with GTA: San Andreas? Where
>> there was some mildly offensive content completely hidden away and not at
>> all accessible without rummaging through the code and activating it with
>> mods, yet people still got upset with Rockstar for it being 'in their
>> game'. This whole issue bothered me in the same way, you are entitled to
>> what the developers intended you to play, anything else is their business
>> wether they let you see it or buy it.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 24/02/2012, at 8:38 AM, Jetha Chan <jethachan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In complete agreement with Chris's position.  Though if I might make a
>> small response to one of your points specifically, Eric:
>>
>> "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. "
>>
>> There is no long tail in the High St market, which still accounts for the
>> majority of console titles (and thus a majority of all titles).  Retailers
>> measure demand for titles by looking at day one preorders, and only get in
>> enough to meet demand (I don't know if you've ever tried to pick up an
>> Atlus RPG after day one).
>>
>> Games prior to DLC have been a single-revenue-stream model; comparisons
>> to movies on DVD or books fall short when you take this into effect.  In
>> most cases, movie studios make the lion's share of their money from opening
>> weekends and *then* supplant that with DVD sales 3 to 6 months later (but
>> by that point, enough information is usually available for them to
>> determine whether their project was a success); books often launch as
>> premium hardcovers sold for a premium price before being shoveled out as
>> mass-market paperback.
>>
>> Finally - why shouldn't studios be aiming for the big hit? We've already
>> seen the market response to sub-AAA games (hint: it doesn't like them).
>>
>> On 24 February 2012 08:28, Christopher Hayward <chris.f.hayward at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/ba5f7e72/attachment-0001.htm>