[PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

Thu Feb 23 18:45:04 PST 2012

Have to wonder just how much Valve is thinking the same thing. I have to
think that TF2 is only as popular as it is now (that is to say; STILL
popular) because of all that user generated content that has gone in. And
now Steam has the Steam Workshop which Skyrim is making use of, and it
already has a MASSIVE amount of mods for it!

So yeah, I definitely have to agree! User generated content is basically
like free DLC for your game. It keeps people playing well and truly after
the fact, which I'd argue makes them more interested in purchasing any
future DLC you might release. I for one don't buy DLC for games that are
gathering dust since I no longer play them!

Cheers,

-Matthew Dyet

Ph: 0466 726 206

Em: mattdyet at iinet.net.au

Web: http://twitter.com/#!/Diomades

From: pigmi-pigmi.org-bounces at lists.pigmi.org
[mailto:pigmi-pigmi.org-bounces at lists.pigmi.org] On Behalf Of Christopher
Hayward
Sent: Friday, 24 February 2012 10:37 AM
To: pigmi at pigmi.org
Subject: Re: [PIGMI] DLC and Launch Content

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/20120224/0e98dd54/attachment-0002.htm>