has dlc gotten out of control ?

bpb101

Do you think that this idea of downloadable add ons to games has just gotten out of control. It has came to a stage video game developers are leaving things out of the games as to sell it again or to have it as a pre purchase "bonus"
2 examples here.

far cry 4 "Pre-purchase now to receive Hurk’s Redemption Missions consisting of 60 minutes of gameplay including, 3 extra missions and 1 exclusive weapon."

This has been left out of the game if you dont buy in advance. They are selling the games for 60 quid and if then 20 quid extra for the season pass (30 quid after release) this means they plan around 40 quid of extra dlc(if you buy 1 by one)

so now your 60 euros games( which is dear to start with) is actually costing the best part of 100 euros.

second example
this speaks for itself



the games is just under a year old and the dlc alone is about 1.5 times dearer than the base game


The old days the had expansion packs and they were complete remakes and they were only about a 10er or so that included single and multiplayers and if you didnt buy them you didnt feel like you were excluded in playing the game you bought. The newer cods kick you from games if you havent got maps.


edit: i forgot to add a poll. And i cant now. if a mod could do one for us that be great(if not no worries)

Has dlc has gotten out of control ?
yes or no

degrassinoel

I have to laugh when people that say it's just EA that does it, and it's out of control. When i see other games doing it just as much or even worse. But, i agree, dayone/prerelease DLC should be limited to special editions/preorders and made available post sale anyway. (most of it is anyway)

Take a look at this one - nearly 3000€ worth of DLC

Rocksmith is pretty bad too at 650€

I think those two are probably the worst of the entire bunch

Icyseanfitz

yeah it really has gotten nuts, i really miss the days of expansion packs its either dlc or microtrasactions in payed games these days, if im putting 60 quid down on a game i better be getting a full game, sadly doesnt work like that anymore

Nody

I guess I'm a bit split on it; if it's purely cosmetic (i.e. Dawn of War packs to get <insert space marine chapter looks> or pre order and you get a new skin for the shiny sword of your hero) I don't really have an issue with it; if it's game play I'm annoyed as I rather have a proper expansion then a one hour of side missions to run through and I usually end up waiting for a GoTY edition with all of them attached instead for the same price I'd have paid for the single player game or I never buy a single DLC full stop and play through the single player game and walk away.

papu

Studios have much larger overheads these days , if they provide good quality dlc and extra content I don't see why they shouldn't charge for it , pre purchase dlc are just the online version of special editions .
Either way I buy GOTY editions or get then 75% off in the sales
If people didn't fall for it they wouldn't keep doing it , it obviously works .

SherlockWatson

Day one DLC is completely ****ing idiotic but other than that I don't really have a problem with it.

ScumLord

Complaining does nothing. The only way to stop it is to not buy DLC and don't pay for season passes. Companies follow whatever course makes them the most money, you giving them money is like giving them a pat on the back and saying "good work" to them.

Shiminay

Yep, the only way to make it stop is to stop buying it.

Waiting for GOTY editions of games is the only way to go unless you want to have to keep buying the game piecemeal. Punishing the companies that indulge in this by making sure they have slow week 1 sales (the most important and relevant stats for any game) is the only means you have of stopping it. The only one. It's also the easiest means of stopping it, so that's terribly convenient

Mr Bloat

I must be in the minority given that I don't mind DLC. It will cost the studio money to make the content either way, whether it's packaged in the original game or whether it's sold later as DLC. If it's packaged with the original game, then they will charge up front for it and games will start costing €80-100 at launch rather than €60. At least with DLC you have a choice whether to buy it or not. If it's a game you enjoy and want more levels, pay the extra. If you don't enjoy it then you won't buy the DLC and you'll be glad you didn't have to pay up front. I only buy DLC for games I really like, I think the only game I ever bought all the DLC for was Borderlands 1 & 2 and I certainly got my moneys worth for those.

I'm talking about extra mission/levels DLC here, not new skins or weapon packs.

Potential-Monke

Problem is, there are too many spoiled rich kids in the world, who just have to show off their shiny new skin for that MP7, or the new hat they just bought. This in turn makes the innocent, gullible kids think they have to buy it to be cool. And we're (read: normal people) stuck in the middle. I don't have an issue with Season passes. If the game is worth it, i'll buy it (CoD is a good example, the map add ons for MP can be worth it if the base game is good enough). But paying €5 for 4 new skins for the guns is stupid. As a season pass holder, i should get them for free. So that's why i'll never buy them.

And i've rarely bought DLC for SP games.

ScumLord

Mr Bloat wrote: »

I'm talking about extra mission/levels DLC here, not new skins or weapon packs.

I can somewhat understand why consolers would pay for skin packs, but it seems like the greatest waste of money on PC and I've little sympathy for anyone that wants to waste their money on something so trivial and easy to do for free.

gizmo

Has DLC in general gotten out of control? Nope. Are there examples of badly implemented DLC practices? Most certainly.

bpb101 wrote: »

It has came to a stage video game developers are leaving things out of the games as to sell it again or to have it as a pre purchase "bonus".

It's far more prevalent for developers to create content specifically for the purpose of selling as pre-order, special edition and downloadable content than to cut existing content for such purposes. Decisions like these are made at the very beginning of the project during the design, planning and budgeting phases, it's not like someone takes a knife to the finished product and goes "**** it, let's cordon off this content for DLC".

bpb101 wrote: »

This has been left out of the game if you dont buy in advance. They are selling the games for 60 quid and if then 20 quid extra for the season pass (30 quid after release) this means they plan around 40 quid of extra dlc(if you buy 1 by one)

Apart from the fact that the first bit of that sentence needs a giant [CITATION NEEDED] tag, if FC4 is anything like FC3 then that content will most certainly fall into the above category anyway. On top of that, this is Far Cry we're talking about, the last game had well over 25 hours of content even without all the side quests and was fantastic even if you didn't avail of the extra DLC.

bpb101 wrote: »

so now your 60 euros games( which is dear to start with) is actually costing the best part of 100 euros.

Assuming we're talking about PC games, the only place most of these games are €60 is on digital storefronts straight after release. They'll be automatically cheaper from online stores like Amazon, ShopTo, GameCollection etc... if you're worried about the price. On top of that, the idea that €60 is expensive for games like these is crazy anyway. As is usually pointed out, if one adjusts for inflations and factors in the actual cost in producing modern games, it's never been cheaper to be a gamer.

As for your example of Payday 2, yes it's had a bunch of content packs released but they've all been fairly meaty, aren't expensive and are add-ons to a game which wasn't "full priced" to begin with. As a matter of interest, take The Big Bank DLC as an example. It contains..

• The Dentist, a new contact played by Giancarlo Esposito
• The biggest heist in the history of PAYDAY
• Plan your heists like never before with Preplanning
• The Falcon rifle
• 4 new masks based on our forefathers
• 4 new materials and patterns
• 10 new achievements with in-game rewards

Just how much do you think they should charge for this additional content?

bpb101 wrote: »

The old days the had expansion packs and they were complete remakes and they were only about a 10er or so that included single and multiplayers and if you didnt buy them you didnt feel like you were excluded in playing the game you bought. The newer cods kick you from games if you havent got maps.

Yes because in the old days content was massively cheaper to produce.

degrassinoel wrote: »

Take a look at this one - nearly 3000€ worth of DLC

Rocksmith is pretty bad too at 650€

I think those two are probably the worst of the entire bunch

With all due respect, they're two awful examples to use when looking at DLC practices. In neither case are you in any way expected to buy all of that content to enjoy the game. In the case of the latter I'd even wager it would make the game less enjoyable for you depending on your music tastes. :pac:

ScumLord

I'd be much more forgiving of smaller developers too. The workload is usually between a small group of people and they simply can't get all the content they'd like into the initial release or they'd be making the game for years. I have no problem with the likes of the train simulator where they create a core functionality that can be expanded on.

Jikashi

DLC coming a good bit after the game proper is fine, as a way or incentivising people to return to the game afetr finishing it or to whet your appetite for the sequel.

But I hate when DLC is annouced for a game months before the game is even out, to be released alongside the game proper. If it's ready with the core game, just include it there. I don't mind it for preorder skins etc, but paid DLC multiplayer features or extra campaign chapters that release seperately but at the same time are just being terribly greedy and explotative.

Kiith

I'm happy to pay for DLC if it's well made and at least has a few hours of play. Some of the Mass Effect dlc was excellent (especially Lair of the Shadow Broker and Citadel), and Artorias is probably the best example of any dlc i've ever played. I can also understand day 1 dlc, in that they are trying to get people to buy it from them, rather than Gamestop and the likes.

It's not all good though, and there are countless examples of how bad dlc can be. Bring the good old days of expansion packs. More Baldurs Gate 2 - Throne of Bhaal, Diablo 2 - Lords of Destruction and Warcraft 2 - Beyond the Dark Portal i say.

bpb101

i dont have a problem with dlc as such , just with the mass produced dlc coming out every other week. in cods(the new ones i dont play because they are ****) you have to keep switching between severs if you dont have the latest dlc map.(yes i know you can look for severs that dont use dlc in filters)

i dont even mind mirco transaction for a new skin on your gun (if people want to buy that, thats grand) you aren't excluded from the game. But leaving out missions just to sell them as dlc is annoying.

somebody above said "Yes because in the old days content was massively cheaper to produce." i completely disagree computers today are a fraction of the price they were, graphics cards ect. Also they are more people on pc and more gamers in general thus they have a bigger market.
not to mention if lets say if Rockstar or somebody want to release a game. they make the game they print the cd print the manual and buy the box they sell it on to wholesalers , they sell it to game shop. and the gameshop sell it. All these people take cuts along you old €60. Now although steam take a good chunk, they just send the game to steam. no disk ,no cost after the game is produced.

I know part of it is the steam sales 75% off but still. As for somebody who said was i talking about pc games - yes , thats why i posted here in the pc gaming forum.
I know you can buy them on amazon and all these sites but dlc is coming out every week.

gizmo

bpb101 wrote: »

somebody above said "Yes because in the old days content was massively cheaper to produce." i completely disagree computers today are a fraction of the price they were, graphics cards ect.

You're free to disagree but you're simply incorrect. The cost to develop a game has increased massively over the last number of generations.

bpb101 wrote: »

Also they are more people on pc and more gamers in general thus they have a bigger market.

True to a certain degree however that does not translate into a bigger marketplace for all. Take the biggest selling games from a few years or even generations ago and compare them to modern ones. Outside of the heavy hitters such as CoD and such, there hasn't been a massive increase in game sales across the board.

bpb101 wrote: »

not to mention if lets say if Rockstar or somebody want to release a game.
they make the game they print the cd print the manual and buy the box they sell it on to wholesalers , they sell it to game shop. and the gameshop sell it. All these people take cuts along you old €60. Now although steam take a good chunk, they just send the game to steam. no disk ,no cost after the game is produced.

Steam take approximately 30% of each sale, that more than makes up for the distribution savings of the move to digital.

bpb101 wrote: »

know part of it is the steam sales 75% off but still. As for somebody who said was i talking about pc games - yes , thats why i posted here in the pc gaming forum.
I know you can buy them on amazon and all these sites but dlc is coming out every week.

So don't buy it.

ScumLord

bpb101 wrote: »

Now although steam take a good chunk, they just send the game to steam. no disk ,no cost after the game is produced.

There is a cost to steam after the sale, where there wouldn't be with a disk sale. Steam allow you to download the game again and they update the game for you. If anything you're getting more service for less money (as long as you don't buy new games).

The only time I get the extra DLC is when buying an old game that's on sale with all it's DLC included. The only exception would be assetto corsa, they have the Nordschleife DLC along with 10 cars already announced for after the general release of the game and the game isn't even finished yet, but it's something I'll gladly pay for as soon as I can.

dreamers75

Arm2 DLC was chunky in Arrowhead (20) and small in the Armies (7.99)

Decent content and if you didnt buy you could still play the lite versions of the armies. Unlikely anyone else would offer that solution.

Gbear

It's all about value for money for me.

Mass Effect is a good example because it has different types of DLC and pre-order bonuses - there's the cosmetic stuff, weapons but also lots of story DLC.
Different skins for characters adds nothing to the game IMO, and even weapons don't do much if there's already a huge arsenal to choose from.
The story DLC on the other hand gives you dozens of hours of content - maybe even hundreds over multiple playthroughs.

Similarly, I spent about 100 quid on CiV over the course of it's lifetime on DLC and expansions, which is a fair bit, but I also put about 1300 hours into it.

Gaming companies have to make money and you can't say to them that something like DLC is bad - it's a perfectly legitimate form of income for them.

It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it to you or not.

ScumLord

Gbear wrote: »

Gaming companies have to make money and you can't say to them that something like DLC is bad - it's a perfectly legitimate form of income for them.

I don't blame the companies at all, it's not like they're forcing people to buy content. I blame the people who buy all the DLC and then complain about it, any DLC I've seen has been pretty upfront about the content, nobody needs to buy any of it.

bpb101

point of clarification. I never bought a dlc

Kirby

Gbear wrote: »

It's all about value for money for me.

Mass Effect is a good example because it has different types of DLC and pre-order bonuses - there's the cosmetic stuff, weapons but also lots of story DLC.
Different skins for characters adds nothing to the game IMO, and even weapons don't do much if there's already a huge arsenal to choose from.
The story DLC on the other hand gives you dozens of hours of content - maybe even hundreds over multiple playthroughs.

Similarly, I spent about 100 quid on CiV over the course of it's lifetime on DLC and expansions, which is a fair bit, but I also put about 1300 hours into it.

Gaming companies have to make money and you can't say to them that something like DLC is bad - it's a perfectly legitimate form of income for them.

It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it to you or not.

Yes but there is a difference between actually creating new content.....and cordoning off part of the original game behind a pay wall.

You mention the Mass Effect 3 DLC which I agree was excellent. Leviathan, Citadel, etc. but the problem was that the Day 1 DLC "From the Ashes" that shipped with it was actually part of the original game....and it was fairly substantial. That wasn't additional content.....that was main game content.

It would be the equivalent of World 5 in Super Mario being day 1 DLC. It's shady business practice and does a disservice to proper DLC that deserves your money.

degrassinoel

from ashes was included in the digital deluxe version - they made it available as day one DLC for slightly more than what the difference was between the standard and deluxe versions.

The only reason people were up in arms over this is because of totalbiscuit's irrational boycott of the game after his glowing reviews of the demo.

Kirby

gizmo wrote: »

You're free to disagree but you're simply incorrect. The cost to develop a game has increased massively over the last number of generations.

He's not actually incorrect. The cost to create a AAA game has increased massively, along with the profits of AAA games. But you can create a game for a hundred quid now that can go on to sell millions. There have been numerous examples of this in recent years.

That simply wasn't possible back in the day of only physical distribution.

degrassinoel wrote: »

from ashes was included in the digital deluxe version - they made it available as day one DLC for slightly more than what the difference was between the standard and deluxe versions. .

. That's all very interesting but doesn't change the fact that it was part of the original game and artificially sectioned off behind a pay wall as "DLC" when it was no such thing. Day 1 DLC was a requirement and that just happened to be the most palatable section of the game they could come up with.

degrassinoel wrote: »

The only reason people were up in arms over this is because of totalbiscuit's irrational boycott of the game after his glowing reviews of the demo.

I didn't even know he reviewed the game so to attribute backlash over from the ashes solely to TB is silly. People can think for themselves. I don't let other peoples opinions on DLC shape my own.

I wouldn't describe myself as "up in arms" over it but I can see it exactly for what it was, and not make excuses for it. My admiration for Bioware and the games they make doesn't blind me to that fact.

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

He's not actually incorrect. The cost to create a AAA game has increased massively, along with the profits of AAA games. But you can create a game for a hundred quid now that can go on to sell millions. There have been numerous examples of this in recent years.

That simply wasn't possible back in the day of only physical distribution.

I think it's rather obvious he was referring to AAA development since we're discussing the scourge of DLC and the good old days of larger expansion packs with both single and multiplayer content.

As for the profits, it's the potential profits for games that have increased which is why larger publishers push for big hits with as much scope for market share as possible rather than making do with a string of smaller hits which make more modest revenue.

Kirby wrote: »

. That's all very interesting but doesn't change the fact that it was part of the original game and artificially sectioned off behind a pay wall as "DLC" when it was no such thing. Day 1 DLC was a requirement and that just happened to be the most palatable section of the game they could come up with.

I didn't even know he reviewed the game so to attribute backlash over from the ashes solely to TB is silly. People can think for themselves. I don't let other peoples opinions on DLC shape my own.

I wouldn't describe myself as "up in arms" over it but I can see it exactly for what it was, and not make excuses for it. My admiration for Bioware and the games they make doesn't blind me to that fact.

I can't believe that over two years, a full explanation from Bioware, further explanation from other people who work in the industry and folk who work in software development and the fact that the actual mission files were never on the retail disc (only Javik himself) you still believe that.

What's worse is that it's even allowed to shape the debate on DLC when there are far more obvious and heinous examples from the very same publisher and developer, such as Dragon Age.

Cravez

To be fair with Payday, the DLC was never Day 1 stuff and they are an independent developer and have consistently kept updating the game, engaging the community and have already added a ton of new stuff for free within the game itself such as missions, weapons, game modes, skins etc since launch. The fact that I enjoy playing Payday and that they are a good independent developer, I don't mind shelling out some extra few quid for a DLC pack.

degrassinoel

Digital deluxe's always have more content than standard versions, that's how i see it. Did Bioware/EA go too far with releasing the DD version which included a 20 minute non-essential side-mission and some fairly bland dialogue from the character it included? maybe..

I'd certainly prefer to have paid a tenner less and still have the content that the DD offered.

Dragon Age: Origins had a very similar Day one DLC - The stone Prisoner, and Warden's keep - the DD version of that included a code you could redeem to unlock it. Or.. you could pay for it on the bioware store.


On TB - i actually cant remember seeing an argument that didn't include TB's boycott ME3 video at the time it was released 2 and half years ago.
I wasn't saying you were up in arms, i was generalising, as that was the general feeling from pretty much everyone who had an issue with game on it's release.

Tbh, i was actually disgusted by TB's video. I liked watching his stuff on youtube and found him to be quite similar to myself in opinion. Personally, after seeing him attack EA and Bioware with a rallying call to boycott the game before he'd even played the full version was completely ridiculous given the nature of his entire existence on youtube being a game reviewer (i know he says he isn't, but he is really).

Well, look at this and see for yourself if you get a chance
the TB ME3 multiplayer glowing review

and the boycott video

gizmo

degrassinoel wrote: »

Digital deluxe's always have more content than standard versions, that's how i see it. Did Bioware/EA go too far with releasing the DD version which included a 20 minute non-essential side-mission and some fairly bland dialogue from the character it included? maybe..

Their mistake was the nature of the content and how it was sold. Javik, being a Prothean, was always going to be of particular interest to fans of the series so having him as paid DLC was never ever going to work out well for them. Even if he arguably wasn't as useful as some other squad members and his dialogue was weak, his mere presence and input at a certain point in the game would have been enough to get people excited. When you look at what they did with the Cerberus Network for Mass Effect 2, everyone buying the game new getting a code, it still boggles my mind why they didn't just do the same with From Ashes. It really was a missed opportunity to offer something cool for fans.

As for it being part of the Digital Deluxe version, there's a few caveats to that. It was a good bit more expensive than the retail version, it was exclusive to Origin and it came with a bunch of other stuff that you may or may not have wanted. It was worse if you were playing it on the 360/PS3 as it only came in the Collectors Edition which was more expensive again with even more extras.

degrassinoel

No idea what the prices were like on consoles at all, my point was based on the pc versions, so you might be right there

Kirby

gizmo wrote: »

I can't believe that over two years, a full explanation from Bioware, further explanation from other people who work in the industry and folk who work in software development and the fact that the actual mission files were never on the retail disc (only Javik himself) you still believe that.

And I can't believe people actually gobble up the spin. :P

Of course they are going to defend the practice. That's a given. Actually accepting the explanation as it seems you have, is another thing entirely. Remember, these explanations are coming from people with vested interests. "EA, people who work in the industry and in software development" as you put it. These aren't exactly impartial views.

Need I remind you that this is the same company who swore blind for months that SimCity was online only because it had to be, who swore that it wasn't an anti-piracy measure but merely how the game was built and that it couldn't be possible to run it offline due to the "vast calculations done by the cloud". This claim was of course, proved nonsense and modders had it running offline in a day or two.

PR people will do what they do. Half my family do it for a living. I know the score and how the game is played but you will forgive me if I don't take the word on how Day 1 DLC is great for gamers from people who make a living off it. Ill use my own brain on that one. It's quite simply an effective, yet shadey way to make money. If it looks like a duck......

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

And I can't believe people actually gobble up the spin. :P

Of course they are going to defend the practice. That's a given. Actually accepting the explanation as it seems you have, is another thing entirely. Remember, these explanations are coming from people with vested interests. "EA, people who work in the industry and in software development" as you put it. These aren't exactly impartial views.

Need I remind you that this is the same company who swore blind for months that SimCity was online only because it had to be, who swore that it wasn't an anti-piracy measure but merely how the game was built and that it couldn't be possible to run it offline due to the "vast calculations done by the cloud". This claim was of course, proved nonsense and modders had it running offline in a day or two.

PR people will do what they do. Half my family do it for a living. I know the score and how the game is played but you will forgive me if I don't take the word on how Day 1 DLC is great for gamers from people who make a living off it. Ill use my own brain on that one. It's quite simply an effective, yet shadey way to make money. If it looks like a duck......

No one here is claiming it's great for gamers nor, at least in my case, am I defending the practice, quite the contrary in fact. What I am doing is refuting this particular instance because, having looked at the evidence and having a reasonable idea how engineering production schedules work, it's blatantly obvious that this simply isn't the case.

The vested interests point doesn't hold up either as there have been numerous instances of other developers calling out poor practices in other companies, whether it's excessive DLC, handling of particular content or inaccurate/untruthful statements made in general. The latest instance being the female avatars in Assassins Creed Unity where many developers, including the former Lead Animator at Ubisoft (now at Naughty Dog), called out some of the inaccuracies in the initial statement on the subject.

Hell, that's ignoring the fact that you're basically saying you're going to ignore all of the opinions of the people who have the slightest idea of how game development works and just form your own opinions based nothing other than playing the game. I'm certainly not saying you should believe everything you're told by these companies but to dismiss it all outright? I just find it a rather bizarre position.

Anyway, long story short, if you want to talk about unacceptable DLC practices from EA/Bioware, I think it'd far more productive if the debate centred around nonsense like this instead. It's obvious, it's immersion breaking and it most certainly exists.

Kirby

gizmo wrote: »

Hell, that's ignoring the fact that you're basically saying you're going to ignore all of the opinions of the people who have the slightest idea of how game development works .

Game development works in the way the studio's want them to work.

In an era where games are made by single people, small teams of a dozen people, massive teams of 200 people, in regimented office environments, in relaxed "Pixar" style environments akin to Naughty Dog which you yourself mentioned, etc. there is most certainly not only one way game development works. To even suggest this is the height of ignorance.

I've heard the argument you are making about Day 1 DLC before and how it "has to work like that!" and to use your own parlance, it doesn't hold up. The publishers want day 1 DLC because they see it as a financial hit. Therefore a team has to be "dedicated" to doing the work a year prior to release.

So a year before the game is finished, sections that would have been in the game anyway, are being built and set aside under a pay wall. The studio's will spin this as some sort of altruistic "but instead of laying off staff when their work is done, we keep them on to do DLC!....but before the game is finished...er....yeh!" and it's as ridiculous as it sounds. They do it this way to make money to the detriment of the customers and the staff themselves. Instead of having to pay the team to do actual new content when they are done, they make them do it under their original timeframe and can pay them the same.

There are plenty of other studio's who don't work like that, who abhor what these companies are doing, and do DLC the right way. Some don't even do DLC at all.

"That's how Game development works hur durr" is making excuses for shady business practices. It works that way because that's the way some companies want it to work. It's not the only way.

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

Game development works in the way the studio's want them to work.

In an era where games are made by single people, small teams of a dozen people, massive teams of 200 people, in regimented office environments, in relaxed "Pixar" style environments akin to Naughty Dog which you yourself mentioned, etc. there is most certainly not only one way game development works. To even suggest this is the height of ignorance.

Again, no one is suggesting this. In this case, EA tend to keep DLC in-house whereas Ubisoft, for instance, have been known to use external studios to work on additional content alongside the main team. The thing all of these studios have in common, however, is that their practices will be designed to be as efficient as possible. To focus on From Ashes so, Javik would have been designed, and had concept art developed at the start of the project, his voice actor would have been in the studio recording lines at the same time as the rest of the cast, as would have any mo-cap that would have needed to be done, etc... It wouldn't make sense to leave this kind of work to later in the project and do it separately, right?

Kirby wrote: »

I've heard the argument you are making about Day 1 DLC before and how it "has to work like that!" and to use your own parlance, it doesn't hold up. The publishers want day 1 DLC because they see it as a financial hit. Therefore a team has to be "dedicated" to doing the work a year prior to release.

Certainly agree with the bit about it being financially lucrative. The content isn't free to create but it certainly benefits from the work already done for the rest of the project, thus making it fairly high margin for what's then sold. Not only that but it can be used as part of pre-order campaigns which have further uses outside of just making money from post-release DLC.

Kirby wrote: »

So a year before the game is finished, sections that would have been in the game anyway, are being built and set aside under a pay wall. The studio's will spin this as some sort of altruistic "but instead of laying off staff when their work is done, we keep them on to do DLC!....but before the game is finished...er....yeh!" and it's as ridiculous as it sounds. They do it this way to make money to the detriment of the customers and the staff themselves. Instead of having to pay the team to do actual new content when they are done, they make them do it under their original timeframe and can pay them the same.

Disagree here. It won't be a year before it's finished, the decision will have been made at the beginning of the project. To put it another way, if someone in a suit had walked in at that point and said "right, there's not going to be any DLC and your budget is the same", I'd strongly wager that the net result would have been no Javik, not everything being included in the game anyway.

To deal with the second point, one need only look at the constant stream of layoffs from companies in recent times who are close to shipping or have just shipped titles to see what happens to a staff who are no longer needed on a project. Again, to bring it back to Javik, if all of his content was ready to go and was cordoned off for DLC, then why were only the character assets included on the disc whereas the actual mission data had to be downloaded separately? EA have never shied away from providing DLC in the form of a downloadable unlock code before, why not just do it again here?

Kirby wrote: »

There are plenty of other studio's who don't work like that, who abhor what these companies are doing, and do DLC the right way. Some don't even do DLC at all.

"That's how Game development works hur durr" is making excuses for shady business practices. It works that way because that's the way some companies want it to work. It's not the only way.

All very true, and the extremely limited pieces of DLC I've bought over the years are generally that kind of meaty, single player focused content everyone seems to generally approve of. As I said, my objection in this particular instance shouldn't be conflated with support for the practice in general, hell regardless of this I still don't agree with how they handled From Ashes as I posted above. However, I simply can't agree with the accusation that this content was "cut" from the game for DLC when it otherwise would have been included as part of the main game.

Kiith

Weren't From Ashes, Cerberus Network and other similar day 1 dlc done like online passes for Fifa and such? As in everyone who buys a new copy of the game gets a code for them, but if you buy it pre-owned, you need to buy it separate?

Kirby

Kiith wrote: »

Weren't From Ashes, Cerberus Network and other similar day 1 dlc done like online passes for Fifa and such? As in everyone who buys a new copy of the game gets a code for them, but if you buy it pre-owned, you need to buy it separate?

Sort of yes. "Season passes" are designed to get money up front for future DLC.

But the Cerberus Network and Fifa codes are 100% designed to make money off second sales. That, I can agree with. Why should gamestop make all the profit? The publisher deserves their cut.

gizmo

Kiith wrote: »

Weren't From Ashes, Cerberus Network and other similar day 1 dlc done like online passes for Fifa and such? As in everyone who buys a new copy of the game gets a code for them, but if you buy it pre-owned, you need to buy it separate?

Cerberus Network was basically a mini season pass of additional single player content in the form of the playable character Zaeed, a weapons and armor pack, a new vehicle with some missions for it and another special story related mission. It was their take on the Online Pass in a game without multiplayer really.

From Ashes, on the other hand, went in the other direction being straight up Day One DLC or an addition to the Origin-exclusive Digital Deluxe version of physical Collectors Edition.

abbir

What pisses me off most about the Mass Effect DLC is that it has still not had a sale on PC. The standard version of Mass Effect 3 is only €10 on Origin and has gone down as far as €2.50 for all its regular edition content. The addon Citadel is €15 for a whole lot less content than the main game.

Kiith

Kirby wrote: »

But the Cerberus Network and Fifa codes are 100% designed to make money off second sales. That, I can agree with. Why should gamestop make all the profit? The publisher deserves their cut.

Yeah, i've no problem with that either. Gamestop take the piss with 2nd hand sales, so it's no surprise to see publishers look for ways to limit their margins.

gizmo wrote: »

From Ashes, on the other hand, went in the other direction being straight up Day One DLC or an addition to the Origin-exclusive Digital Deluxe version of physical Collectors Edition.

Ah ok, i had forgotten that. I do remember being pretty pissed about it, as i'd consider him pretty essential for the game. I can't even really imagine playing through the game without Javik. He wasn't like Zaeed, with only a few lines of dialogue, but a fully fleshed out character.

If you don't have the DLC, does his door on the Normandy just not open?

degrassinoel

abbir wrote: »

What pisses me off most about the Mass Effect DLC is that it has still not had a sale on PC. The standard version of Mass Effect 3 is only €10 on Origin and has gone down as far as €2.50 for all its regular edition content. The addon Citadel is €15 for a whole lot less content than the main game.

Probably wont either, i can tell you this though, that DLC is worth every red cent. And the latter ones were designed by the same developers that are working on the new game, so it's a fairly good insight into that too. And a slightly different style from the rest of the game

Kiith

I'd agree with degrassinoel. Citadel is absolutely brilliant, and i'd consider it essential for any fan of the series. Definitely worth the €15 or so i spent on it (though i think it was close to €10).