[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Wed Feb 22 19:44:07 PST 2012

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pigmi.org/pipermail/pigmi-pigmi.org/attachments/20120223/1e582046/attachment-0002.htm>