[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Wed Feb 22 19:32:40 PST 2012

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pigmi.org/pipermail/pigmi-pigmi.org/attachments/20120223/e4ebea98/attachment-0002.htm>