750 réponses à ce sujet

[Mirrman70]

A 70 page hardcover art book with illustrations from the development team.
A limited edition copy of Mass Effect: Invasion with unique cover art.[3]
A premium N7 fabric patch.
Exclusive 4x6 lithographic print featuring a one-of-a-kind piece of artwork of the SR-2 Alliance Normandy.
The N7 Collector's Edition Pack, which contains:
Four weapons: N7 Eagle, N7 Hurricane, N7 Crusader, N7 Valiant
A Robotic Dog: A faithful sidekick to keep you company on board the Normandy.
New outfits for Ashley, Kaidan, James Vega, and Liara T'Soni.
N7 Hoodie: Outfit item for Shepard while onboard the Normandy.
One Online Pass
Mass Effect 3: From Ashes: An additional downloadable mission and character.
Free digital soundtrack.
An Xbox LIVE Normandy prop for your Avatar. (Xbox 360 Only)
A collection of forum and social badges, avatars, and perks.
A premium metal case featuring commemorative artwork of both male and female versions of Commander Shepard.


I also got a whole lot of other stuff to and I am sure if all of those items had an individual price tag (official price) than i woulod have paid more than i did. i paid for the collectors edition not the dlc. two separate items.

[Ninja Stan]

wrdnshprd wrote...

and im sorry.. i have a hard time believing that they would start development on DLC AFTER the game has gone gold and still have it ready for day 1 of original release.. that would have to be a pretty short piece of content, that quite frankly would not be worth paying for.  no, my guess is they develop the "extra" content while still in the process of making the "original" game.  it has to go through the same certification process (play testing, QA, etc) as the "original" content.. and that takes time.

thus, again, they can put the DLC in as part of the original iso.. but they CHOOSE not to (thus cutting the content from the original release) in order to make a few extra bucks.  why customers dont have a problem with this is beyond me.

Again, incorrect.

DLC is content planned to be DLC, which gives it a different schedule than the base game. Near the end of base game development, those developers whose work is mostly done move on to DLC development. Dev time on DLC is much shorter than the base game, since all the assets are already done and you're looking at mostly new story, dialogue, and cinematics. You're not building combat mechanics or creating base character models or working with the engine anymore.

When the base game is "done," it goes through a certification process which could take up to 2 months. At this point, no additional content may be placed on the disk. DLC development is ongoing, so none of it can be placed on the disc. This suits devs fine because DLC stands for "downloadable content." Because it doesn't have to be on the disc, it doesn't have to go through as long of a certification process.

Once the game is certified "gold," it is sent off to manufacturing, which can take up to another month before it is shipped to retail distributors. This means there is a period of up to 3 months where nothing on the base game disc can change. Any change means the game needs to be re-certified from the beginning, a not insiginificant expenditure of time and money (yes, certification costs money, I think in the tens of thousands of dollars per platform).

While the game is in the long certification process, the game is branched so that work can begin immediately on the Day 1 patch. DLC development goes until it too needs to be completed and certified, which doesn't take as long since it's just downloading, install, and critical bug-hunting being tested. That takes maybe a week. In order to put the DLC content into the base game, you need to plan for it to be part of the base game to begin with. And if you did that, you'd still need to plan some kind of Day 1 DLC, and that makes for a very circular argument. Suffice it to say, Day 1 DLC is not (usually) content stripped from the base game to be sold as DLC later. It is content that otherwise would not see the light of day.

That's what I remember from my days at BioWare. I've never really seen what the big deal is, since I consider DLCs to be mini-expansions, and gamers generally seem to like the idea of expansions. They just seem to really dislike Day 1 mini-expansions, for some reason.

Hope that helps.

[Pasquale1234]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

If not for D1-DLC, what would be the incentive to pre-order or, for consoles, purchase new rather than used?  Bonus items, maybe?  I think extra content works really well for both purposes.

I suppose they could offer some sort of discount for pre-orders, but by the time a game gets to release, they have made a huge investment and are pretty hungry for revenue.

Except Bioware didn't do this for ME3. The D1DLC was extra, regardless of if you pre-ordered. It was simply just extra for the consumer to pay. So the extra content wasn't working for either of the above purposes, it was simply charging gamers extra.

And I'm not (at all) against the idea of discounted DLC for pre-orders or new copies, but I've not seen anyone embrace that in a way that makes sense - Season Passes are about the most illogical business approach to DLC I've ever heard.

IIRC, they did exactly that for DA2.

The Exiled Prince was included with a pre-order, and The Black Emporium if you purchased new rather than used.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that the base game is complete without either of them - but they were nice incentives.

I can't speak to ME3, as I don't do ME.

Maybe because many customers don't mind paying companies for goods and services they value?

A lot of products have additional options and upgrades available at a higher price.  Why is it wrong for game developers to offer additional content at an additional price?

Again - no other industry has story content on Day One for extra money. Key points - STORY content (not creature comforts, like if the content is in 3-D, but actual extra story) on DAY ONE (so DVD releases with deleted scenes coming out almost a year later don't qualify) for extra money. 

Because no other industry tries to cut up and divy out narrative content like that, it really isn't comparable. It would be like reading a book on your Kindle and getting a prompt in-between chapters to pay more for a special scene/deleted chapter that the writer has already finished and could have added to the story, but didn't unless you pay an extra $X dollars. The technology for that exists now, but the industry basic common sense has not acted on it.

Isn't it also true that no other industry tries to deliver a completely interactive story content experience?  I'm not sure that it is reasonable to try to compare games with other forms of publishing story content.

Let's not forget that DLC is not always additional narrative STORY content.  Sometimes it is armor, weapons, accessories, or other add-ons, like The Black Emporium, complete with your very own summonable Mabari.

[Ninja Stan]

In Exile wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...
Telltale is already doing this by making their games episodic in nature. That may or may not be the kind of "story-type microtransaction" you are referring to. Personally, I think it's a neat, though not necessarily better or worse, way to sell a game product, though I am the kind of gamer who would wait until the entire story is done before purchasing it.

No, that episodic model seems like something very different from an MTX. What I'm talking about is something like purchasing the next conversation with the Viscount in the quest-chain for .30 cents. 

Gotcha. It might work that way in the future, but breaking up a narrative like that would be very disruptive. At some point, you'd need to have a complete-in-itself game experience, with the MTX content being optional to the completion of the story/game. You also have to consider what the dev/pub thinks will be attractive to the player. Bonus quests and story may sell, horse armour allegedly sold well (despite the internet-wide dismissal of the practice), but mere conversations? That might be a harder sell, which means it's a bigger financial risk.

LotRO (Lord of the Rings Online), when they went free-to-play, had useful items as MTX, such as additional inventory bag slots, additional character classes and races, premium quests, etc., but the game itself was still playable without those things.

[Ninja Stan]

Moving this thread to Off-Topic.

Jimmy, I think you're done. The more you try to argue your case, the more it seems like you just want what you want and game companies should give it to you, regardless of how much (or little) sense it makes for anyone else.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mirrman70 wrote...

A 70 page hardcover art book with illustrations from the development team.
A limited edition copy of Mass Effect: Invasion with unique cover art.[3]
A premium N7 fabric patch.
Exclusive 4x6 lithographic print featuring a one-of-a-kind piece of artwork of the SR-2 Alliance Normandy.
The N7 Collector's Edition Pack, which contains:
Four weapons: N7 Eagle, N7 Hurricane, N7 Crusader, N7 Valiant
A Robotic Dog: A faithful sidekick to keep you company on board the Normandy.
New outfits for Ashley, Kaidan, James Vega, and Liara T'Soni.
N7 Hoodie: Outfit item for Shepard while onboard the Normandy.
One Online Pass
Mass Effect 3: From Ashes: An additional downloadable mission and character.
Free digital soundtrack.
An Xbox LIVE Normandy prop for your Avatar. (Xbox 360 Only)
A collection of forum and social badges, avatars, and perks.
A premium metal case featuring commemorative artwork of both male and female versions of Commander Shepard.


I also got a whole lot of other stuff to and I am sure if all of those items had an individual price tag (official price) than i woulod have paid more than i did. i paid for the collectors edition not the dlc. two separate items.

Some confusion here, maybe on my part... what you are talking about is the N7 Collector's Edition, not the DLC Collector''s Edition Pack. It cost $80, not $70. 

So you paid an extra $20 for this swag and the DLC. To which I still say you pre-paid your DLC and then got what would normally have been a $10 Collector's Edition swag. 

But it to each their own - one thing to note here is that the quantity of these N7 copies were very limited supply. So not everyone could have gotten the DLC for "free." 

[Fast Jimmy]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Moving this thread to Off-Topic.

Jimmy, I think you're done. The more you try to argue your case, the more it seems like you just want what you want and game companies should give it to you, regardless of how much (or little) sense it makes for anyone else.

If that's the case, I'll take my leave.

[Cyonan]

This is a mixed subject for me.

I do sort of feel like buying a game new should get you the entire game as it was at launch plus patches. I say "sort of" because I'm willing to forget about the purely cosmetic stuff like pre-ordering at gamestop gets you a new gun skin or something. It is kind of sad to see stuff that would have been an unlockable item 10 years ago being sold to me for $2.99, though.

The stuff that bugs me a lot more is the stuff that isn't purely cosmetic, such as From Ashes. While it was included in the collectors edition of the game, it really should have been part of buying a copy new regardless of what edition as it was done before the game launched. There is plenty of stuff included in collectors editions and companies have been doing it without including day 1 DLC for years.

Once the game has come out, then by all means start on the DLC. Having day 1 DLC just feels like content has been cut out of the game and is being sold back to me at a higher price, even if that wasn't strictly speaking the case.

Free to Play games are exempt from this, because you didn't buy the game in the first place.

Modifié par Cyonan, 31 décembre 2013 - 10:17 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Wait there are people defending day one DLC?

Unbelievable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Wait there are people defending day one DLC?

Unbelievable.

Why?

I maintain both that game prices are too low, and that we shouldn't be required to pay for components we don't want.  Day One DLC addresses both of these problems, by increasing the total cost of buying everything, but also allowing players to opt-out of some of that content and save money by doing so.

[LPPrince]

I think the "don't pay for things you don't want" thing makes sense, to a degree. But thats the thing.

I can't speak for anyone but myself really, so I won't overstep my bounds. Personally, when purchasing a game, I want as much content as I can get for the cost of the game alone. Why? I'm spending a lot of money on a game. $60 usually. If I'm gonna spend that much, I want everything I can get without feeling like I'm getting gouged with a carrot on a stick ploy.

A lot of times(and I'm guilty of doing this in the past), people will make a comparison of pricing and DLC to food. Usually it goes something like this-

Cupcake=Game. Sprinkles=DLC. Cupcake=$3, Sprinkles=50¢. Both available at the same time(day one). Cupcake doesn't require sprinkles, not that hard to forego them if you lack the money or just don't want to pay for them.

That simple? Not really. With today's economy, $60 is A LOT to throw at a nonessential part of my life. If I'm going to throw that kind of money at something I want, its not out there to expect I'd want all the bells and whistles I can get, especially if its made of the same stuff the product is.

A game and its day one DLC is fundamentally the same thing. Day One DLC isn't a physical map of the game world, a bed sheet, helmet, or something like that. For those sorts of items, I'd definitely understand paying more money. But for digital content that simply requires a download, on the same day as the release of the game itself? Bundle it in plox.

Unhappiness with the practice, its pricing, or whatever is expected, but it'd be on me to act and show my disapproval. Best way to do that- not give my money.

I did that with DA2. I preordered and thus got Sebastian for no extra cost, but other than him I didn't purchase/acquire any DA2 DLCs because I was unhappy with the game. What happened? That sentiment was shared by many and now, DA:I looks to change what made people unhappy with DA2, myself included.

Same thing would work with Day One DLC, in theory. Problem is its an industry-wide practice. Everyone(including myself, being part of the problem) gets the DLCs regardless of how they feel about it, thus not really showing anyone that it won't work anymore. Not like it does now.

So, its a personal battle for each person that doesn't like the practice of spending extra money on something they don't want. Do they purchase it anyway because it exists, even if they don't like paying for it? Or do they forego the purchase to show their disapproval of the practice?

So far it seems the former is more likely, and thus the practice continues. Would take a looooot of people performing the latter to actually change anything.

Creating a thread like this raises the question, but the power lies in the money people may or may not spend. We'll see how things develop with time.

[Magdalena11]

@ NinjaStan - thank you for clarifying DLC for me. I had been afraid to ask but I really didn't know how it came about. I had been worrying a little that content in the base game would be affected and you've done a great deal to ease any anxiety. If I had questions I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[Martyr1777]

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


And good luck telling a player that a Prothean character, whose species has been the forefront of the entire trilogy, doesn't play a larger part in the overall game's experience.

Hence why I place the stipulation that we ignore Javik and focus on low profile day 1 dlc, which you still view as a moral outrage. Sure, I'll grant you, a high profile character like Javik could draw all sorts of attention. ME3 being the last installment in the first ever save import trilogy? Lots of attention there.  

Hence the Bringing Down the Sky example. Who, while playing Mass Effect 1, would be saying to themselves "Damn, I missed out on that!". Who while playing DA2 would be saying to themselves "Bioware stole Sebastian from me!". I mean, is Starkhaven even mentioned if you don't have the dlc? I don't think he's even listed in that little book of companions that Cassandra tosses at Varic.

You see, I can at least buy into the idea that a consumer who knows nothing about Javik, their first thoughts might be "he's obviously important to the main plot", even if he's completely useless. Your conclusion however, that all day 1 dlc is the problem, does not follow, since developers also have the ability to design non-intrusive content.

The point has nothing to do with what the actual content is, sure 2 of the 3 dont have the same weight be unless we buy it we dont know. That is why this practice is very questionable. Be cause once you disc lock content or have DLC that is percieved as very imprtant to the game you start have trust issues with some of you fan base.

Why even bother risking that when the model with DA:O is much  more 'safe' and acomplishes the exact same goal. I actually find manny of Fast Jimmys arguments to be very good including the likelyhood of higher revenue for encouraging new game sales vs early DLC.

One other thing from earlier on in the thread. Those that made 'entitled whiner' comments. This has nothing to do with entitlement at all. I'm more then happy to pay a company that earns it. The problem is if I dislike a practice like D1DLC then I'm obviously less inclined to give them  that money. Consider how much time this is getting from any game/dev it should be safe to say that would impact sales more then they earn of that initial DLC in the first place. So it simpley doesnt seem like a sound practice anyway.

But honestly I prefer expansions to DLC anyway, day 1 or otherwise.

[Ninja Stan]

Magdalena11 wrote...

@ NinjaStan - thank you for clarifying DLC for me. I had been afraid to ask but I really didn't know how it came about. I had been worrying a little that content in the base game would be affected and you've done a great deal to ease any anxiety. If I had questions I'm sure I'm not the only one.

One of the main reasons people think so badly about Day 1 DLC is that they don't know how games, and especially DLC products, are made and when. I admit, it is difficult to learn if you're not part of the industry. And when I try to tell people how it all works (from my experience and perspective, of course), I am usually dismissed as a corporate shill.

I was disabused of many preconceptions once I started working at BioWare.

[LinksOcarina]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...

@ NinjaStan - thank you for clarifying DLC for me. I had been afraid to ask but I really didn't know how it came about. I had been worrying a little that content in the base game would be affected and you've done a great deal to ease any anxiety. If I had questions I'm sure I'm not the only one.

One of the main reasons people think so badly about Day 1 DLC is that they don't know how games, and especially DLC products, are made and when. I admit, it is difficult to learn if you're not part of the industry. And when I try to tell people how it all works (from my experience and perspective, of course), I am usually dismissed as a corporate shill.

I was disabused of many preconceptions once I started working at BioWare.

Its strange, seeing things from the other side sometimes. I was like that once I joined the ranks of unpaid game journalists. 

[Billy-the-Squid]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...

@ NinjaStan - thank you for clarifying DLC for me. I had been afraid to ask but I really didn't know how it came about. I had been worrying a little that content in the base game would be affected and you've done a great deal to ease any anxiety. If I had questions I'm sure I'm not the only one.

One of the main reasons people think so badly about Day 1 DLC is that they don't know how games, and especially DLC products, are made and when. I admit, it is difficult to learn if you're not part of the industry. And when I try to tell people how it all works (from my experience and perspective, of course), I am usually dismissed as a corporate shill.

I was disabused of many preconceptions once I started working at BioWare.

Yeah, just ignore the Javik being included with the collectors edition on Day 1 only, but not the normal edition at Day 1 irrespective of whether you bought it new, and your explaination is golden. Maybe the pre order caveat, that's always a nice one, if Alien's Colonial Marines showed anything is how Day 1 DLC is used as a bait, to pull people into buying things sight unseen. Or how about on disk "Day 1 DLC" which other publishers, Capcom being the worst offender by far, keep pushing. Until that is actually taken into account then you will be called a corporate shill, given that a blanket defense of the practice of Day 1 DLC also covers these kind of issues, which are universally loathed by anyone with half a brain. As technically, downloading a code to unlock on disk content is downloaded, so it counts as "DLC"

I've worked and studied in the legal profession long enough to know how issues like this are explained in a more pallitable way, and it makes me distrustful of language. 

Modifié par Tequila Cat, 02 janvier 2014 - 04:09 .

[Martyr1777]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...

@ NinjaStan - thank you for clarifying DLC for me. I had been afraid to ask but I really didn't know how it came about. I had been worrying a little that content in the base game would be affected and you've done a great deal to ease any anxiety. If I had questions I'm sure I'm not the only one.

One of the main reasons people think so badly about Day 1 DLC is that they don't know how games, and especially DLC products, are made and when. I admit, it is difficult to learn if you're not part of the industry. And when I try to tell people how it all works (from my experience and perspective, of course), I am usually dismissed as a corporate shill.

I was disabused of many preconceptions once I started working at BioWare.

I know the development lifecycle too, and I still very much distrust D1 DLC. Just as others say you get something like Capcom with the on disc DLC and you can forget about these concepts of finishing material between gold and release.

Seriously if you want the DLC day one fine, make it like DAO, I had no problem with that at all because it completely nullifies any possible abuses.

The fact of the matter is DLC can be, has been, and will be abused by some companies. So if you can distance yourself from those companies and make all of your customer base feel more relaxed which out causing issues in the opposite direction then why wouldn't you, it makes no snese not to.

And if you include what would be D1 DLC as part of new purchases like with DAO then I can't see anyone complaining about that, I mean noone complained about DLC with DAO that I remember, but after ME3 and the other more recent DLC crap from other companies its a big deal. So go back to the model that noone disliked and still made boat loads of cash.

Should be a no brainer.

[frustratemyself]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I maintain both that game prices are too low...

Depending on what country you're buying the games in.

[wrdnshprd]

Ninja Stan wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

and im sorry.. i have a hard time believing that they would start development on DLC AFTER the game has gone gold and still have it ready for day 1 of original release.. that would have to be a pretty short piece of content, that quite frankly would not be worth paying for.  no, my guess is they develop the "extra" content while still in the process of making the "original" game.  it has to go through the same certification process (play testing, QA, etc) as the "original" content.. and that takes time.

thus, again, they can put the DLC in as part of the original iso.. but they CHOOSE not to (thus cutting the content from the original release) in order to make a few extra bucks.  why customers dont have a problem with this is beyond me.

Again, incorrect.

DLC is content planned to be DLC, which gives it a different schedule than the base game. Near the end of base game development, those developers whose work is mostly done move on to DLC development. Dev time on DLC is much shorter than the base game, since all the assets are already done and you're looking at mostly new story, dialogue, and cinematics. You're not building combat mechanics or creating base character models or working with the engine anymore.

When the base game is "done," it goes through a certification process which could take up to 2 months. At this point, no additional content may be placed on the disk. DLC development is ongoing, so none of it can be placed on the disc. This suits devs fine because DLC stands for "downloadable content." Because it doesn't have to be on the disc, it doesn't have to go through as long of a certification process.

Once the game is certified "gold," it is sent off to manufacturing, which can take up to another month before it is shipped to retail distributors. This means there is a period of up to 3 months where nothing on the base game disc can change. Any change means the game needs to be re-certified from the beginning, a not insiginificant expenditure of time and money (yes, certification costs money, I think in the tens of thousands of dollars per platform).

While the game is in the long certification process, the game is branched so that work can begin immediately on the Day 1 patch. DLC development goes until it too needs to be completed and certified, which doesn't take as long since it's just downloading, install, and critical bug-hunting being tested. That takes maybe a week. In order to put the DLC content into the base game, you need to plan for it to be part of the base game to begin with. And if you did that, you'd still need to plan some kind of Day 1 DLC, and that makes for a very circular argument. Suffice it to say, Day 1 DLC is not (usually) content stripped from the base game to be sold as DLC later. It is content that otherwise would not see the light of day.

That's what I remember from my days at BioWare. I've never really seen what the big deal is, since I consider DLCs to be mini-expansions, and gamers generally seem to like the idea of expansions. They just seem to really dislike Day 1 mini-expansions, for some reason.

Hope that helps.

i understand your points.. but im sorry.. i just fundamentally disagree with them.  for one, i have a hard time believing that project management isnt shooting for the day 1 release day when it comes to this kind of content.  of course they are.  therefore they PLANNED for this content to be released on day 1 so it can be released alongside the "original" game. 

you have to understand, from a consumer's point of view.. day 1 DLC that you actually have to pay extra for is not "extra" content... i am basically having to pay extra just to get the entire game.. even if you say that its not "important" to the overall story for the "original" game.. you still have to make it worth the money if you want it to sell well.. so, at the very least its some decent side quest content that im not going to get even though i paid a full $60 for the title, maybe more if i bought the collector's edition.  again, from the consumer's point of view.. that SUCKS.. yes, its first world problems.. but you are going to tick off your fans with this sort of practice.. especially in an  economy where money is tight.

that all being said.. if you were to make it "free", as long as you buy the game new, i can completely understand that.  for one, you guys dont get money from used game sales so this practice makes sense..  and even if you did, most of us understand the concept of used.  but charging an extra $10 on top of the original 60 is bullocks.. no matter how you slice it.

[Ninja Stan]

wrdnshprd wrote...

i understand your points.. but im sorry.. i just fundamentally disagree with them.  for one, i have a hard time believing that project management isnt shooting for the day 1 release day when it comes to this kind of content.  of course they are.  therefore they PLANNED for this content to be released on day 1 so it can be released alongside the "original" game.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. This content is planned to be released as DLC.

The part you seem to not be getting is that they planned it to be DLC. If they wanted it in the base game, they would have planned for it to be in the base game. The DLC content is content intended for sale separately, though they might include it with the base game as a package to promote pre-orders or Week 1 purchases.

you have to understand, from a consumer's point of view.. day 1 DLC that you actually have to pay extra for is not "extra" content... i am basically having to pay extra just to get the entire game.. even if you say that its not "important" to the overall story for the "original" game..

Nope. That's you looking at it differently. The "entire game" is the base game. That's the complete-in-itself game experience they're releaseing, and you can complete the game and story with just that product, and it will have a beginning, middle, and end. Done.

DLC is additional, optional content that is neat, but completely unnecessary for the completion of the base game. If you see the DLC content as "part of the base game experience," then the marketing is working. If the DLC content makes you want to have that content, then the devs are doing their jobs correctly.

you still have to make it worth the money if you want it to sell well.. so, at the very least its some decent side quest content that im not going to get even though i paid a full $60 for the title, maybe more if i bought the collector's edition.  again, from the consumer's point of view.. that SUCKS.. yes, its first world problems.. but you are going to tick off your fans with this sort of practice.. especially in an  economy where money is tight.

If money is that tight, then don't buy the DLC. But also, don't expect that content for free just because you think it's part of the "complete game experience" you feel entitled to. The "complete game experience" is in the base game. Anything else is extra and a bonus, which you can (usually) get as part of a pre-order. The consumer will naturally want more content for less money, but the market seems accepting of the amunt of content in modern videogames for the price at which they're selling (individual gamers's tolerances and preferences notwithstanding).

that all being said.. if you were to make it "free", as long as you buy the game new, i can completely understand that.  for one, you guys dont get money from used game sales so this practice makes sense..  and even if you did, most of us understand the concept of used.  but charging an extra $10 on top of the original 60 is bullocks.. no matter how you slice it.

I disagree, but then, I'm a gamer that doesn't mind the concept of DLC, paid DLC, or DAy 1 DLC. It doesn't change the criteria I use to decide whether to buy a game. Heck, sometimes I'll buy DLC for a game I like and never get to it, but I'm okay with that because I'm supporting the company and the franchise with my dollars. Other times, I'll really want the DLC, but don't think it's worth the money they're charging, in which case, I wait for a sale or live without it. But if I don't want the DLC, or don't like the game enough, I simply won't buy the DLC. Me disagreeing with a game company's decision doesn't change their prerogative to make that decision.

[Sylvius the Mad]

frustratemyself wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I maintain both that game prices are too low...

Depending on what country you're buying the games in.

We can check ofr any country.  All we need is the cost of games now compared to some time in the past, and inflation figures for the local currency.

[AlanC9]

wrdnshprd wrote...

i understand your points.. but im sorry.. i just fundamentally disagree with them.  for one, i have a hard time believing that project management isnt shooting for the day 1 release day when it comes to this kind of content.  of course they are.  therefore they PLANNED for this content to be released on day 1 so it can be released alongside the "original" game.  

Did Stan ever say they weren't shooting for day 1? I don't see that anywhere in his post. What am I misreading?

you have to understand, from a consumer's my point of view.. day 1 DLC that you actually have to pay extra for is not "extra" content...

Fixed.

[Cyonan]

It seems what we have here is mostly a conflict of what we all think the "complete game experience" is.

I would say that it's more than just the beginning -> middle -> end -> done in the case of most games. To me the complete game experience is also exploring the world, doing the side quests, talking with various people, etc. It's the entire game, not just the main event.

When part of that content is $10 right out of the gate on top of the $60 for the game, it can feel like you're getting less than the complete game experience. I know people have been explaining the idea of planning it from the start, but I'm still curious to know if the resources dipped into the main game's or if those resources would have just not existed at all had the DLC not been getting made.

Even with all that, I can understand why a number of gamers are slow to trust developers and publishers these days when they say that they had it all planned out from the start(all we really have is their word that it happened that way, after all). Incidents like EA lying about Sim City's always online requirement or the whole Aliens: Colonial Marines business is hurting the trust that people have in developers/publishers to tell the truth.

That said, I don't have a problem with paid DLC after the fact(outside of certain practices, but that's an entirely new thread). Those aren't really any different than the expansion packs of old, only smaller. They're a good way to keep your game relevant for longer.

As always, free to play gets some exceptions because you didn't pay $60 for the complete game experience in the first place. Those $10 optionals are the entire lifeblood of the project.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wrdnshprd wrote...

you have to understand, from a consumer's point of view.. day 1 DLC that you actually have to pay extra for is not "extra" content.

Of course it is.

To question this requires that we recognise all lines of demarcation in this discussion as arbitrary, which renders the dispute moot anyway.

[Eurypterid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

you have to understand, from a consumer's point of view.. day 1 DLC that you actually have to pay extra for is not "extra" content.

Of course it is.

To question this requires that we recognise all lines of demarcation in this discussion as arbitrary, which renders the dispute moot anyway.

Yeah, it's kind of the very definition of 'extra' content: it's not needed in order to complete the game, and it's the customer's choice whether or not to buy it.

As far as the 'complete game experience' argument goes, I look at it this way: if I play the base game and don't notice anything missing, then I've got the 'complete' game experience. This is why even though I'm not a big fan of Day 1 DLC (or most other DLC in general), it doesn't bother me enough to make a big deal of it if a game has it. I've yet to play a game that has DLC that I've decided to pass on and feel like there's a glaring hole there.