[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Thu Feb 23 18:32:03 PST 2012

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/20120224/57c8f6d5/attachment-0002.htm>