By Alec Meer on March 17th, 2009 at 9:00 pm.
…and while that DLC isn’t anywhere near as menial as Bethesda’s infamously insulting initial extra content for Oblivion, I do so love that the phrase “horse armour” has become a part of the gaming vernacular. It’s games’ “jumping the shark”.
Anyway, to get to the point – while the hard drive-equipped consoles enjoy/suffer from ubiquitous in-game systems to download extra content, free and otherwise, it’s not something that’s been anywhere near standardised on PC. There’s a raft of separate, competing and often clunky stores and services for the games that do offer it, and it’s partially for that reason that we haven’t suffered the deluge of crapshoot that PCs’ ever-online nature could otherwise enable.
(I probably shouldn’t be quite so down on DLC at large – it’s just that so much of what I’ve seen on 360 seems to be tokenistic and/or overpriced. I’ve little doubt it will eventually yield excellent content, but it still seems a little stuck in the faddish stage for now. There’s also the risk that the bonus maps we often get in free patches might dry up in favour of micropayments, and that would be a tragedy).
Games For Windows Live would love to be that standard, but the wide-ranging venom for it from PC gamers and the complete disinterest from any publisher/developer with at least half an ear to the community ground means that’s unlikely to happen. When Steam jumps onboard the DLC bandwagon though – well, then we sit up and take trepidatious notice. Such is the download store’s power that it introducing something can be deemed a trend-starter.
First out the gate is indie-ish puzzler The Maw (which I wrote about rather enthusiastically about last week, but haven’t had the chance to complete yet. Sadly, comrades reckon its initial inventiveness drops sharply in the game’s latter half, which is itself deterring me from going back). One of the stock criticisms of the eating-based curio is that, at around three hours, it’s far too short. So, appropriately, Steam’s first-ever DLC is a couple of a extra levels, which when bought are slipstreamed into the game’s running order. It’s worth noting these extra levels have previously been released for the XBLA version of the Maw, so it’s grand to know PC gamers aren’t missing out on any Mawing. It seems to be a fairly noble first move for Steam DLC.
The price doesn’t seem bad for Americans at $1.25, but just like the main game ($10 there, £9 here), we Britishers are miserably mistreated – I know the exchange rate isn’t on much to our favour these days, £1.10 is scarcely equivalent to $1.25. But this is incidental moaning. More important is how much of a precedent this is. Does this herald a new era of DLC? A few weeks ago, I might have said “nah, Steam’s not that trend-setting”, but given how integrated it was with big third party releases such as Dawn of War II and Empire: Total War, it very probably is the start of a mechanism to drop micro-payment DLC into other, bigger games. (In fact, I do wonder if, in a couple of months, we’ll see all those store-exclusive units, paints and armour for those two games – e.g. – crop up as DLC on Steam for those purchasers who missed out on them).
Here’s the key phrase from the press release:
“DLC can now be added to any game on Steam, regardless of whether it was originally purchased via Steam, at retail, or via other digital outlets”
How do we feel about that? Well, depends on the quality of the extra stuff, really. Right now, I don’t want to see a surfeit of buy this! spend that! messages in and around my beloved tower of Steam games, but if it’s all good stuff then I’m all for it. In a way, it’s the natural evolution of the episodic model that Valve have tried to bring about, but messed up somewhat by being so (agreeably) perfectionist about the Half-Life 2 episodes.
In short: don’t let this option to directly flog DLC to the vast Steam masses be a cue for horse armour mk.2. Let’s see someone really make something special out of this opportunity.
Oh, and have an official press release:
March 16, 2009 – Valve, creators of best-selling entertainment products and advanced technologies, today announced the arrival of in-game downloadable content to Steam, their massively popular PC gaming platform. In-game DLC allows developers and publishers to use their own games as a platform for selling additional content to gamers.
The first game to take advantage of this new in-game DLC capability is The Maw, by Twisted Pixel Games. Their first DLC releases are levels entitled The Maw: Brute Force and The Maw: River Redirect. Each DLC level expands The Maw storyline by fitting in-between the original levels as “deleted scenes.”
Twisted Pixel CEO, Michael Wilford, says “We’re happy that we can now offer Steam customers significant expansions to the Maw story, delivering more Maw directly to gamers while they’re still playing the game.”
DLC can now be added to any game on Steam, regardless of whether it was originally purchased via Steam, at retail, or via other digital outlets. It is also a feature of Steamworks, the suite of free tools and services available to game developers and publishers.
17/03/2009 at 21:15 LewieP says:
I wonder whether Steam games will start including DLC files in the initial download, but locked until you pay for it. Like what happens sometimes on the 360 with stuff already being on the disc.
17/03/2009 at 21:22 Jeremy says:
Hopefully they’ll start it off by making a proper single player experience for Dawn of War 2.
17/03/2009 at 21:23 MadTinkerer says:
This opens up a whole other new possibility: The “Play For Free” model of Asian MMOs. Release the main game for free, and you can defeat the whole game without paying a cent. But if you want to play certain classes, buy a pet, set up a shop to sell your loot to other players, or just really pimp out your spaceship’s cabin, you need to shell out a few (just a few) dollars for each thing.
Not that I like that model (I prefer one big transaction for a proper game, with expansions and/or decently-sized episodes, over micro transactions for bits and bobs), but opening up the possibility of a completely different payment model opens up new design possibilities.
17/03/2009 at 21:27 El_MUERkO says:
Ah, Horse Armour, the final nail in my interest in Oblivion, I find it hard to believe so many people bought it.
Now I have no problem with DLC after a games release, I happily paid for The Lost and Damned just a few weeks ago.
What gets my goat is pre-order exclusive ‘downloadable content’ that is nothing more than a code to unlock items and units that were finished before the disks were even burnt but are now denied from fans of the game.
Dawn of War 2 and Empire: Total War have bought done this of late and while I love the games and respect the developers I’m far from happy with then or their publishers.
In my mind everything made for the game from it’s largest map to it’s smallest texture before launch should be stuffed in the game to make it better for everyone, not be restricted to a privileged few.
17/03/2009 at 21:28 Jeremy says:
I just realized something, I’ve included the word “proper” into my every day use. I blame RPS.
17/03/2009 at 21:34 Larington says:
Heres hoping Valve are able to gatekeep some of the tripe away from us.
“We were thinking of adding [Horse Armour equivalent]…”
“Are you reeeeaaallly sure the players will want to pay MONEY for that?”
17/03/2009 at 21:45 Bremze says:
“Of course we are, look at how many people bought the Horse Armour DLC, zero effort and lots of suc… I mean buyers!”
17/03/2009 at 21:49 Ginger Yellow says:
I don’t really see the difference in principle between “DLC” and “expansions”. Obviously if DLC in practice comes to mean what “patches” used to mean, then there’s a problem. But I fail to see that there’s a qualitative difference. Is Entrenchment DLC for Sins or an expansion?
17/03/2009 at 21:56 cHeal says:
Well DLC mostly tends to refer to extra content, added to the existing game whereas an expansion generally tends to added a mini game onto your game. Whether it be a new story or quests, new maps etc. DLC for me means a plugin. Something you plugin for use with what is already there, so character skins, maybe new weapons or junk like that.
17/03/2009 at 22:01 elmuerte says:
The MAW DLC is also available from the Greenhouse for $1.25 for everybody in the whole world.
http://www.playgreenhouse.com/game/TWSPX-000001-02/
http://www.playgreenhouse.com/game/TWSPX-000001-03/
17/03/2009 at 22:05 kuddles says:
I never understood why people had such a huge problem with the horse armor when to me it was the perfect example of great DLC. Everyone whines when it’s something that significantly alters the game or feels like content that should have been in the original release, but whenever it’s something that’s completely inconsequential if you choose not to buy it, everyone has a hissy-fit about that too.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that gamers are insufferable whiners by now, though.
17/03/2009 at 22:13 deSadist says:
@kuddles I couldn’t agree more. That’s exactly how I feel. I bought Oblivion and didn’t buy the horse armor. Simple really.
I feel no righteous rage over the fact that a company is trying to sell me something I don’t want. Happens all the time.
17/03/2009 at 22:19 Shariq says:
It’d be nice if we could get the Puzzle Quest expansion on PC this way. :)
17/03/2009 at 22:19 kyrieee says:
fuck dlc
I won’t pay for it (games are fucking expensive as they are. if I pay full price for a game I’ll have no remorse playing their dlc)
17/03/2009 at 22:23 mist says:
DLC brings the danger of going into the territory of micro-payment-only games..
..namely, that instead of the developers building a game that is completely designed around being FUN, a DLC-enabled game can also be designed around selling stuff.
When DLC becomes the norm, a gamer can ask himself “was this feature implemented to improve my enjoyment of the game? Or was this feature implemented to subtly convince me of the need to buy DLC XYZ?”
Which is an unwanted development, imho.
17/03/2009 at 22:23 Nick says:
You obviously missed what people were actually indignant about.
17/03/2009 at 22:23 Down Rodeo says:
Horse armour – “ride in style”. Oh dear.
Surely you mean ‘uninterested’ Alec?
17/03/2009 at 22:26 Man Raised By Puffins says:
Lost and the Damned is pretty darn good, although that’s more of a download-only expansion pack than what is usually considered DLC. I find DLC works pretty well for Rock Band, and I also hear good things about the SingStore, where individual tracks are well within impulse buying range and very tempting, particularly when you’ve got a stack of points in the bank.
I agree though that it’d be a shame if the PC catches the 360 disease of charging over five quid for map packs and the like, which I’m still refusing to pick up on principal.
17/03/2009 at 22:26 Skurmedel says:
I have a Xbox 360, and subsequently Xbox LIVE and I think the DLC-stuff has gone a bit too far. Things that really should be in patches, like an extra map here or there is elevated to DLC instead (there is DLC that do offer more but I feel that’s quite rare.) For example I bought “Filmer’s Pack” to Skate 2 for the cost of a lunch. While that’s not a very high cost, what I actually got wasn’t much.
On PC I would expect this to come free of charge in a patch, because that’s how you keep people playing your game and attract new players. I really hope the publishers avoid DLC hysteria, but my confidence in the big name publishers is nigh.
17/03/2009 at 22:28 Caiman says:
What annoys me is when the DLC is thinly-disguised original content from the game, excised and sold as “extras” in order to encourage people to pay more for a game that was too short as a result. That alone makes it a no sale, although the demo didn’t really grab me anyway. DLC if done right offering good value extra content is a great concept, but don’t treat us like idiots or we’ll ignore it.
17/03/2009 at 22:29 RC-1290'Dreadnought' says:
DLC means Developer Made Mod, Right?
17/03/2009 at 22:30 JonFitt says:
The problem I saw with horse armour was signified a change for game publishers to charging (albeit small) amounts for inconsequential extra content which would previously been chucked in (probably with a patch) gratis.
The roadblock to charging for tiny things has never been the technology, it’s been the payment system. You might want to charge $0.99 for something, but with a brick and mortar store that’s pointless, and even using your website it’s costly. If Microsoft’s Live system handles all the payment processing and you just cash in, why not!
As far as I can tell on the Xbox360 you can buy cheats (unlocks in Skate 2) just contemplate the ridiculousness of that for a moment. IDDQD?, that’ll be $1.50.
I don’t mind buying more content, I do mind being nickel and dimed when I’ve already paid $50 for a supposedly complete product. We’ll see how this goes.
17/03/2009 at 22:33 Tei says:
He… man. I just have bought Oblvium, in spanish.. no less (sadly, all the voices are still in english ). And I have proceded to un-crappify the game installing better textures and stuff for faces, companions, and stuff… and still the game feel the same. No idea… On Morrowind adding mods was fun, because you where able to expand your fun, ….you was able to practically add new continent, cityes, houses, everything… but for some reason I feel adding stuff to Oblivium goes nowhere. Can you understand why? because I can’t. Maybe I am spoiled by Morrowind cristal armor, the wall, the swamp area, balmora, the city-in-a-shell… haa…. man.. Morrowind is soo awesome, and more awesome in this awesome. I make me hate and hate more that stupid faces on Oblivium.. And what about the eyes? why the eyes are soo strange in Oblivium?
17/03/2009 at 22:33 MadTinkerer says:
Mist: “DLC brings the danger of going into the territory of micro-payment-only games..
..namely, that instead of the developers building a game that is completely designed around being FUN, a DLC-enabled game can also be designed around selling stuff.”
As I mentioned above, although it isn’t my preference, I don’t really have a problem with this. It’s insulting to charge a $50 “entry fee” and then however-much-horse-armour-costs for horse armour. But if you do the Maple Story thing of $0 entrance fee and $2 for extra inventory slots (starting out with a generous number to begin with) or whatever, then it’s just a different business paradigm.
17/03/2009 at 22:49 Jeremy says:
In short: DLC either means you’re greedy or forgot to put something in the game. Obvi.
17/03/2009 at 22:50 Dinger says:
Okay, time to tap the RPS collective consciousness:
How many pay-for-DLC or expansions have been unqualified successes?
‘Cos I’m looking back, and I can’t think of many. Problem #1 with pay-for-DLC is that the audience is restricted to those who already bought the game. Problem #2 is that they still have to be playing the game at the point the DLC is offered.
You know, I suspect the “DLC-for-free” model works because it energizes the base that already bought the game, and automatically gets them talking. So, DLC-for-free’s only problem is that it targets those who haven’t played the game yet (the majority of platform owners), and many of those won’t be interested.
17/03/2009 at 22:56 zak canard says:
Data disks, Add-on packs, DLC. The name and delivery method may have changed over the years but it’s still essentially the same thing. It’s just unfortunate that the console way of pushing any additional content seems to be fixated on gouging us for every last bit of change we have, but for very little added value.
Then again there were some real stinkers when it comes to data disks back in the day. Anyone else remember the Super Skidmarks data disk on the Amiga for instance? I seem to remember that only adding two tracks from the original game and motorised cows. Was it worth it? I’m not sure, motorised cows or not.
I would have a go about the other end of the spectrum, stuff that should be DLC/Add-ons but pushed out instead as a full price title (here’s looking in your direction EA Sports), but that’s for another night I think.
17/03/2009 at 22:57 Baris says:
@ Jeremy
You weren’t satisfied with the single-player experience in DoW2 when compared to other games of it’s genre? Some People are just hard to please I suppose.
17/03/2009 at 22:57 Xocrates says:
I like the idea of DLC as a sort of Mini-expansions. I bought The Maw DLC, and at 1.20€ and around 30 minutes playtime each I don’t think it’s particularly bad (let’s face it, on a per minute basis a movie ticket is more expensive).
The problem however is if developers start to leave content out of their games purposely so they can sell it it later.
Stuff that they couldn’t make in time for the final game is, perhaps, justifiable. But there is a fine line between providing extra content and milking the userbase for their cents.
At this point I think the correct attitude is to wait an see.
17/03/2009 at 23:01 Wolfox says:
@Tei: you’re not the only one to feel that way. I thought Morrowind was brilliant. I got Oblivion, and all I could say of it is… meh.
17/03/2009 at 23:05 gulag says:
“How many pay-for-DLC or expansions have been unqualified successes?”
Granted, not many. However, Half-Life 2: Episode 1 (Man City 2) was a success. It amounted to nothing more than an extention/ extra chapter to the game, using the same engine, but was worth the cash. Episode 2 isn’t quite the same thing, as it included a bunch of new stuff, inc. stand-alone games, as part of the Orange Box, and that was fine too.
I’m more or less confident that the folks at Valve are going to excercise some commmon sense over what they agree to host as DLC content. They’ve been reluctant in the past to let some games onto their service (Queue a raft of example of stuff people don’t think should be on Steam.), and I think that will be the case here too.
17/03/2009 at 23:08 cliffski says:
Why do people get so wound up about this? This is giving players a choice. Why is that bad?
If Relic sold DLC for company of heroes, I’d buy enw maps and units every week. I’d LOVE them to do that. There may not be enoguh demand or dev time to do an expansion pack or sequel. Fine, do a new british tank and charge me $2-3 for it, I’m happy.
I don’t get why people are so annoyed at the thought that a company is offering to sell them additional content for a game they have bought. It’d like fuming at nokia because they will sell you ring tones.
If you don’t want the extra content, don’t buy it, but don’t assume nobody wants to buy it. I’m 100% behind the idea of buying a basic game, and having the option to expand it on a piece-by piece basis.
Choice for the gamer is good.
17/03/2009 at 23:11 gulag says:
I should add something else here. This is essentially the gaming pop singles market we’re talking about here. That’s bloody fantastic/The first step on the road to Hell, depending on your POV.
I can’t wait to read reviews of additional content that injects something new into games I bought and enjoyed 6 months/ a year ago. Imagine if Bob Dylan decided he needed to stick an extra track into Blonde On Blonde to improve the experience. That would rock. And if I want to find out if it does make it better, it won’t cost me an arm and a leg to do so.
17/03/2009 at 23:11 Deadpan says:
I’m afraid to check from work but I wonder if anyone’s started up a blog just for DLC shit. Now that APPLE is getting into DLC too. Call it HorseArmor or some variation.
17/03/2009 at 23:28 Saul says:
I’d be really interested to see a profit comparison between selling DLC on Steam (once it’s been going for a while), and giving it away for free (which leads to new sales of the game). Personally I think Valve and Epic have the right idea, treating the game as a service. The concept of micropayments gets right up my nose.
17/03/2009 at 23:32 jalf says:
@cliffski: Because people are worried it’s a slippery slope. You might end up in a situation where *all* extra content costs money. Why not charge for patches too? You want that bug fixed? That’ll be $5.
And then, it’d be tempting to include as little as possible in the base game, wouldn’t it? After all, every feature you put in the base game is a feature you can’t charge extra for afterwards.
Of course, this may be an absolute worst-case scenario, but it’s enough to cause people to worry. And of course, PC gamers are used to extras being free, let’s not forget that. You buy the game, and anything the developer adds to it, short of a full-fledged expansion, is made available as a service to the customer. That’s about to change. And obviously, no one wants to pay for something that used to be free. ;)
17/03/2009 at 23:59 Deadpan says:
@jalf
Of course, it’s hard to argue that EA hasn’t bee slanting that way in alot of their more recent games.
18/03/2009 at 00:00 Rich_P says:
There’s nothing inherently wrong with charging for extra content, but at what point do the publishers make mods against the EULA? Can’t have DLC competing with the superior and free mods, right? Who knows what some PC game publishers will think of next; after all, they thought (think) install limits, Starforce, and piss-poor support (lack of 16:10 ratios, etc.) were all acceptable.
Personally, I always wait a few years for the inevitable complete/platinum/gold edition. I bought Civ IV Complete for $25 and just ordered GalCiv II Complete for $40. This is partly because I’m a cheap ass, but I also like paying one price for the definitive version of a game. Hence my dislike of subscription fees, arcades, and microtransactions.
18/03/2009 at 00:03 redrain85 says:
One good thing that could come of this, is devs no longer shafting the PC when it comes to DLC releases. I’m sick of seeing DLC being released on the consoles that doesn’t show up on the PC.
But I, too, worry about it becoming a slippery slope. First it starts with worthwhile content, but then before you know it we’re being charged for patches and other small updates. And who knows where it could eventually lead. A monthly subscription fee for using Steam?
Now, I have a lot of confidence in Valve and don’t think they’re going to go down that road. I’d like to think they’ve already demonstrated how savvy they really are, by giving away updates for free in order to keep sales on certain titles vibrant and alive for years. This way they still make money, without customers feeling like they’re being ripped off.
I have no problem with the “games as a service” model as long as we’re not being nickeled and dimed to death. Keep most updates free, and charge only when the additional content is substantial enough to merit it. Content like the HL2 episodes fall into the latter category. While patches, addtional characters or weapons, additional game modes, map packs, and other similar small updates do not.
And none of that “pay to play” crap. No Xbox Live-like subscription fees, no microtransactions to keep unlocking portions of the game as you progress.
18/03/2009 at 00:03 jalf says:
@Rich_P: And that might also show a way for the DLC plans to backfire. After all, who wins if the customer ends up waiting a year or two after release before buying your game? The developer gets less money, and after more time, and you don’t get to play the game while it’s new and shiny. But like you said, if they’re stupid enough to give us install limits or Starforce….
18/03/2009 at 00:08 D says:
@Cliffski: Yeah, except it would be like if Nokia could sell you the ability to have a ringtone seperately. Obviously the problem for the customer is discerning what should be part of “the full package” and what should be extra, which is easier for phones.
For me, anything on sale that I would want in the game, will automatically not get a purchase from me. If I deem it important enough to want in my game, it should have been part of the released product (or post-patched). This means I won’t be buying any DLC at all. It may be silly backwards logic, but business paradigms are not my friends, lest we forget that companies would sell us the air we breathe if they could.
18/03/2009 at 00:21 redrain85 says:
By the way, just to clarify my previous statement . . . when I said “games as a service” I did NOT mean the type of situation where the game files are kept permanently “in the cloud” on a server or heavy-handed DRM is used on the client.
That is the type of “service” the game publishers can shove up their asses. When I buy a game, I should be free to install and play the game in prepetuity and be able to make a personal backup copy. No restrictions, other than perhaps only allowing you to play a game on one PC at a time like how Steam currently works.
18/03/2009 at 00:21 Y3k-Bug says:
Skurmedel says: On PC I would expect this to come free of charge in a patch, because that’s how you keep people playing your game and attract new players. I really hope the publishers avoid DLC hysteria, but my confidence in the big name publishers is nigh.
A question to the group: why is it so wrong to charge for that extra content? They charge you for the game, they charge you for expansion packs. As long as what they charge for the DLC is fair (say, if your DLC is smaller than a full on expansion pack, the price should reflect that), I’m all for it. While I certainly enjoyed years of free content patches, I’m not going to sit here and pretend that its ludicrous for a developer to want to charge me for that extra content now. It costs money to make that DLC the same way it costs to make the full game. Why should they make money off one and not the other?
Would it be fair to say that the only reason they didn’t charge for DLC before is because there was no real system to do so on the internet before now? The investment to infrastructure necessary for this is pretty big.
18/03/2009 at 00:25 Y3k-Bug says:
D says: @Cliffski: Yeah, except it would be like if Nokia could sell you the ability to have a ringtone seperately. Obviously the problem for the customer is discerning what should be part of “the full package” and what should be extra, which is easier for phones.
Well no, it would be like if Nokia sold you a phone with ringtones, and charged you for extra ones if you so choose to buy them. Not buying those ringtones doesn’t at all diminish the functionality of the default phone.
Which, you know, Nokia DOES do that.
Your second point about needing to be a discerning consumer is spot on though.
18/03/2009 at 00:29 Tworak says:
god damn I hate dlc
18/03/2009 at 00:37 bansama says:
I’m all for Steam offering DLC and really don’t get the fuss. If people don’t want to buy it, then simply don’t buy it. What I despise is companies using options to sell DLC which are not available to a large number of their initial purchase base. Such as the FO3 DLC. Microsoft simply refuse to sell it in a number of countries. And lets not even get started on Ubisoft again. They’ve already permantly lost access to my money.
Now if only Bethsada would wake up and get that DLC on Steam with an actual monetary price tag on it. I’ll gladly buy it. Incidentally, I have never bought any DLC on via my PS3 as the majority of it doesn’t interest me.
But when it does, why not buy it? If it offers something you want, it’s all good. All they really are are smaller expansion packs and I’d rather buy a cheaper smaller DLC pack than a more expensive expansion pack full of a large number of features I don’t care for, just to get the few I do.
As for The Maw, I bought both the levels and let my children play them. They spent a good hour per level so that’s been a good purchase for us.
18/03/2009 at 00:39 Cedge says:
@cHeal:
Could you explain how “new story or quests, new maps, etc” doesn’t ultimately fit under the umbrella of “extra content”?
These extra levels for The Maw sound like a great example of “good DLC,” to me. They’re micro-expansions (in this case, new maps), at micro-prices. Perfectly fair, and fundamentally identical to expansion packs which have been an accepted part of PC gaming for decades (just on a smaller scale).
Bad DLC, on the other hand, is the sort of useless, non-game-affecting stuff like for-pay character skins, as well as for-pay items that give advantages in multiplayer games (can’t stand that nonsense). For-pay cheats, and DLC that just unlocks content that’s already on disc is also quite crap.
Does anyone remember the Wing Commander II: Speech Accessory Pack? I like to use it as an example when jaded PC geezers start complaining about how they think that consoles invented the trend of charging for things that “should have been included in games in the first place.” The origins of this trace back to PC, no doubt.
I’m really sick of PC gamers assuming that all DLC is bad. Yes, for-pay cheats and skins are crap, but things like cheap additional maps and the like are fine by me, and cannot be criticized, without aiming the same criticism at expansion packs.
18/03/2009 at 00:39 Rich_P says:
@Y3k: It depends on the implementation. Publishers are free to charge whatever they want for additional content; nothing inherently wrong with that. Doesn’t mean I have to buy it.
DLC and even expansion packs aren’t conductive to the way I play games: intensely for a few weeks and then never again (multiplayer FPS games the exception). As such, I want my once-through to be “complete.” Ex: Waiting for Civ IV Complete allowed me to play a superior version of the game.
Different strokes, different folks.
18/03/2009 at 00:50 Y3k-Bug says:
I’m posting alot!!@%
Saul says: I’d be really interested to see a profit comparison between selling DLC on Steam (once it’s been going for a while), and giving it away for free (which leads to new sales of the game).
According to a developer who uses steam, that isn’t true for anything outside of the big releases:
18/03/2009 at 01:00 Y3k-Bug says:
@Rich_P Thanks for that perspective, I never thought to look at it from that angle.
18/03/2009 at 01:05 Tony says:
I like overpriced and useless DLC. For the same reason I like overpriced and useless “collectors editions”. Why?
I want PC game developers to make lots of money. That encourages them to invest more money making more great games. But I don’t want to spend MY money. So whats the solution? Release expensive “collector editions” and “horse armour DLC”. The people with more money than sense will by these extras, the developers get increased profits and more funds for their next project, the frugal gamers get more games at the same price. Everyones happy.
Collectors Editions and DLC are like a progressive tax system. Rich people pay more. Don’t be angry. Let them pay.
18/03/2009 at 01:14 The Unshaven says:
I’m interested in the capacity to have DLC on Steam, and wary.
For example, my *assumption* when I bought “The Maw” was that the DLC would be free. I enjoyed “The Maw,” but did think each level got repetitive within itself after the first half.
I won’t be getting the DLC for the game simply because I can’t quite summon the effort to do so. Plus, including DLC, it would push the price to being $25+ NZ for a game that is 4 hours long.
I was willing to pay $8.95 USD (10% preorder discount) for the Maw, and I don’t resent doing so. But I’m not interested in paying more to extend the experience, either.
- The Unshaven
18/03/2009 at 01:21 jalf says:
Tony: You don’t think “overpriced and useless DLC” ends up hurting game developers? Every time they charge money for something that could have been given for free, they lose customers. The customers they do retain may well spend more, but does it compensate for the extra copies of the base game that could have been sold if it had been packed with all these extras?
Obviously, there isn’t a single answer to this. But so far, I have seen very little reason to suspect any big publisher of possessing any kind of business sense. They work very hard to wreck their business, making it as painful as possible to buy or play games. And I don’t doubt that given the option, they’d put just as much effort into making everything DLC, thus giving people no incitement to actually buy the base game in the *first* place. (and then blame piracy for the declining sales, of course ;))
The comparison to tax systems is obviously flawed, because the point in taxes is that everyone get the same benefits. In a progressive tax system, everyone get the same services, but rich people pay more for them. That’s not how DLC works. That’s rich people actually get more content as well. And if the DLC idea really takes off, what makes you think only “useless” DLC would be sold? Wouldn’t it make sense to sell the useful functionality as DLC as well?
DoW2 came with what, 7 multiplayer maps. Why not ship with one, and sell the remaining 6? Did Fallout 3 really need all these optional quests? Couldn’t we have sold 30% of them as DLC? When was the last time you saw a big publisher show restraint, even when it was for their own good? If they *can* sell everything as DLC, isn’t it tempting to think that they *will* sell everything as DLC? Buying the game gives you the main menu. For the actual gameplay, you have to buy the DLC. ;)
I’m not saying this is what will happen, just pointing out that it is one possible scenario, and that letting paid DLC become the norm isn’t necessarily a good thing.
Most of the arguments in favor of DLC follow the lines that “if they give me more features, I’m happy to pay”. Yeah, fine, but what when they simply take features you’d get in any case, either with the game at release, or as a free patch, and move them to paid DLC? Still happy to pay?
Let’s think for a second, what do you think EA would choose if you gave them that choice?
“We can make features A, B, C and D for our game. How many of them should we ship with the base game?”
In a world without DLC, the answer is simple: “As many as possible. We want to encourage people to buy our game”.
With DLC, don’t you think some clever exec will decide “Put A in the box, and charge $5 each for B, C and D”.
18/03/2009 at 01:24 Saul says:
@Y3k-Bug: That developer isn’t talking about releasing extra content packs, as far as I can tell. If he did, would it make him more money if he sold it as DLC, or if he gave it away free to boost sales of the original game? That’s what I’d like to know.
18/03/2009 at 01:50 MadTinkerer says:
Cedge: “Does anyone remember the Wing Commander II: Speech Accessory Pack? I like to use it as an example when jaded PC geezers start complaining about how they think that consoles invented the trend of charging for things that “should have been included in games in the first place.” The origins of this trace back to PC, no doubt.”
To be fair, that was produced at a time when
1) Disk space was at a premium.
2) Origin had to develop their own in-house drivers from scratch to fit their massive games onto those small disks. This costs money, as does hiring voice actors.
3) No internet, so someone had to pay for those physical disks.
4) Full speech was the HD Graphics of the time.
5) Many users didn’t have PCs that could handle speech and the game’s graphics at the same time (VGA was the cutting edge of video tech at the time), so why charge half the users for a feature they’d need to turn off?
So that’s a bad example because it only looks bad in retrospect.
18/03/2009 at 01:57 jalf says:
@Cedge: Yeah, and by the same token, the PC invented games, because general purpose computers existed before dedicated games consoles, and so they had the first games too. I think rather than finding *the* first example of paid DLC, it’d be more relevant to look for the platform that popularized it. Do you seriously believe that Steam got inspired by Wing Commander in adding support for DLC?
18/03/2009 at 02:17 Erlam says:
I’m having a debate with my friends now about this, but I’ll reply with my opinion:
Micropayments for options is fine, I.e. new single player levels, cosmetic looks, etc.
Micropayments for functions is not OK, I.e. Versus mode for RE5.
The company I work for is doing some DLC (for the PS3 actually) now, and I know how much work goes into even the smaller things, so I can appreciate the needs of those people to, you know, eat, which requires money.
I think we have to draw the line at some point though — or we run the risk of content being withheld simply to charge for later.
18/03/2009 at 02:27 Tony says:
Jalf: Good points. But now you’re talking about “high quality, worth buying” DLC. If developers start releasing that kind of DLC then I’m happy to pay for it.
My comparison of “overpriced, useless DLC” being like a tax system is still sound. Rich people pay more for no real benefit. My friends here at work buy every limited edition plastic figurine and lunchbox. They’re happy to pay $10 for an extra magic sword in a game that already has 300 other magic swords. I’m happy for them to give money to my favourite developers. Everybody wins. Developers get increased profits, the collectors get their “exclusive extras”, the frugal gamers get to play more games at the same price.
18/03/2009 at 02:46 Y3k-Bug says:
@Saul I see what you mean now, and you’re right, it will be interesting to see how that pans out. But I still think it’s really Steam doing the marketing heavy lifting there rather than the content. But either way, I get your point.
@Erlam Couldn’t it be argued that the Versus mode in RE5 is optional though? Its not like RE has been traditionally known for it online play. It’s an optional gameplay mode.
18/03/2009 at 03:21 Sagan says:
5 Reasons to dislike DLC:
1. You get a reward without taking a risk or overcoming a challenge in the game (automatically cheapens all the other rewards in the game. Even for those who don’t buy the DLC)
2. Not everyone gets that reward (simply bad game “rules”, even in single-player games)
3. You get something that is of value inside the game from outside the game (which is against the nature of all games)
4. If you don’t buy the DLC you don’t have the “complete” version (some people hate that feeling)
5. Often it just isn’t worth the money
That being said, I have no issue with mostly cosmetic DLC (that has no, or not much value inside the game) and with DLC like this, that is pretty much just a small expansion.
18/03/2009 at 03:48 Cedge says:
@MadTinkerer:
My point still stands.
@Sagan:
Most of those points can apply to expansion packs as well.
@jalf:
First off, “games” predate computers (and electricity) by quite some years. ;) And actually, the very first videogames were created using purpose-built analog computers and oscilloscopes, not general-purpose PCs. Irrelevant to this discussion; just correcting your history.
Whether it be MMO subscriptions, expansion packs, speech add-ons, whatever, I still contend that the PC introduced and popularized post-initial-purchase costs long before any console did.
And again, I agree that much of the DLC seen these days is nonsense, but I firmly believe that downloadable gameplay expansions (large or small, as long as the price fits) are a great idea, and are a terrific way to leverage the internet as a distribution platform for additional game content.
18/03/2009 at 03:54 Jeremy says:
@Baris
On the contrary, I was very pleased with the single player of DoW 2, but I would like to see a little more uniqueness between the levels, I think they could do so much more with it. Mostly though, I just want more of the game.
18/03/2009 at 03:59 Sam says:
After having played Morrowind for years and being quite active in its modding community, Bethesda’s attitude with Oblivion and its DLC was by far the largest factor in me not buying that game.
If a publisher is expecting me to spend $50 on a game and then more on things that should have been included initially they’re idiots. If I’m buying a game I expect to be buying a game, not a platform for direct advertising.
18/03/2009 at 04:26 Dezro says:
YEAH HORSE ARMOR SUCKS AND ALL, BUT I WOULD PAY GOOD MONEY FOR DIFFERENT HAIRCUTS, FACIAL HAIR, HATS, GLASSES, AND MASKS ADDED TO THE TF2 LOADOUT SCREEN
NOT JOKING AT ALL BTW
18/03/2009 at 04:52 perilisk says:
My only concern with DLC is game companies going out of their way to kill modding, cutting features to monetize them later, and in general annoying consumers to squeeze money out of them. To revisit the Nokia/ringtone analogy, I think fewer people would pay a dollar for a ten second, lo-fi ringtone if it was as easy as ripping a CD and dropping it in your phone. The nature of hardware, USB connections, and MP3s suggests that such functionality could be added at a trivial cost, but making your product less functional makes it easier to get money from your customers — but, critically, only in markets with lack of competition.
Like handset manufacturers, there is competition among developers, and in many cases (enough to punish non-performers in a healthy market) a non-financial desire on designers and engineers to create a “quality” product. But there is a cartelized, mostly soulless, bottleneck (phone-subsidizing telecoms in the analogy, console makers and, to a lesser extent, digital download services in the field of games) that can use its position as gatekeeper to pressure developers into stifling competition in the realm of post-release bonuses. The harm will fall on gamers, although primarily on console “owners” and PC gamers who play console ports.
18/03/2009 at 05:14 Tony says:
@perilisk Well put. You (and many others on this thread) would enjoy reading Clay Shirky’s article recommend by Kieron in the most recent Sunday papers. Actually who am I kidding. Anyone who reads this far down a RPS comments thread is bound to treat Kierons recommendations like Stone Tables from heaven, and so of course you’ve already read the article.
18/03/2009 at 06:52 the affront says:
The forced local currency is the number one reason I won’t buy anything off Steam any more if it’s available elsewhere in a currency of my choosing. It’s simply an insolent “because we can, suck it!” rip-off. Fucking mafia. I’d like to see the shitstorm if one went into a store and would based on one’s nationality be forced to pay more for a product.
/rant
That said, if it’s quality DLC and the original game (this includes patches and new content – if, say, TF2 had each class update as DLC I’d shit on it and wouldn’t have bought it in the first place if this was known at launch, regardless of its quality, as stuff like this simply has no place whatsoever in (somewhat) competitive multiplayer) doesn’t suffer for it, why not? Stardock’s SOASE “mini addon” Entrenchment could be argued to be DLC even though it breaks compatibility with the original game, and was still worth its money.
Anyway, I think DLC is inevitable. It is proven to work by truckloads of free to play MMOs financed by item shops that are basically DLC. Now we can only hope, for us consumers and for the developers, that it won’t end up a huge money-grubbing greed-fest as that would probably propel piracy to an unprecedented pinnacle.
18/03/2009 at 07:04 Gunrun says:
Eagerly awaiting the Heavy Rock, Gold edged Paper, and Combat Shotgun DLC packs from RPS.
edit: “I’d like to see the shitstorm if one went into a store and would based on one’s nationality be forced to pay more for a product.” You already do. It’s called living in a different country. Just with the internet it’s more visible.
18/03/2009 at 07:19 the affront says:
Gunrun: Yes, but one could argue that is justified by differing logistics/retail costs. A sales clerk/etc obviously doesn’t earn the same wage everywhere. Digitally it does cost the same, EVERYWHERE (don’t start with bandwidth..).
Thus you can only compare it to magically teleporting to a shop in a different country at no cost to yourself and still being forced to pay more than the natives.
So, in the end, the only reasonable explanation for this is pressure from the retailer mafia to keep their outdated distribution system artificially viable.
18/03/2009 at 08:01 Viperion says:
In the late ’90s, Cavedog released around 20-30 additional units for Total Annihilation, most of which were later included in the Core Contingency add-on. They did all of this for free. Their sales of the CC add on were, as far as I know, pretty strong for an RTS add-on of the day. Heck, they released additional extra units and if I remember correctly, maps, three years after the game was released. Really, the only thing ‘new’ about DLC is the acronym and the payment part.
Personally, I think that DLC is looked at as a revenue stream for companies nowadays, whereas Chris Taylor, in the TA era, looked at it as a way to keep gamers interested in his game, and therefore word of mouth marketing for the expansion or for the next game. I really do wonder which translates into more revenue, and if there is a study or anything on that.
18/03/2009 at 08:35 cliffski says:
surely we can let the market decide this? If you don’t want horse armour, don’t buy it, but FFS don’t get annoyed because some other gamers DO want it. maybe they are obsessed with horses, or armour, or they are rich. As has been mentioned, if other gamers pay for DLC, everyone benefits because the devs make money they can channel into newer games.
I don’t think optional DLC is against the spirit of games either. Football is a game, but not everyone is forced to wear the same football boots. Surely people spending more money on boots is an unfair advantage that ruins the game etc?
I wish more games had DLC. And I wish I could buy all games on a menu-basis. I never play campaigns in an RTS and I always skip cutscenes. I’d love an option to not pay for either part of the game.
I’d love to have bought just the land battles in Empire:Total War.
18/03/2009 at 08:44 tentacleraep says:
Some DLC can be good and some bad, but it has gone too far on the console market since some companies actually ship games with DLC on the disc but require you to buy one or more unlock code(s) to play all of the levels on the disc, this has been done with Beautiful Katamari and a couple of other games.
I can accept map packs as DLC but I have a hard time accepting DLC that gives a player an edge over another player since that means being rich in the real world makes you better in games.
18/03/2009 at 09:23 Skurmedel says:
@Y3K-bug: It’s not wrong at all, I’ve bought expansions all my life. See my example though, about $10 for more or less two extra camera options in the game? They really should be in there from the start.
Skate 2 is a very good example of why at least some worry is justified, I got the game 2 days early and it was really obvious that they intended to sell a whole bunch of stuff as extras with an inflated price tag. Two days later the first DLC popped into the list, which was more or less a cheat. Another good example is Call of Duty 4s map pack which was a really shit map pack from the start, and had absolutely no substance since it was more or less reiterations of old maps. Since buying RO I’ve gotten at least 4 maps from patches, and they all were better than the ones I paid for.
A case of totally acceptable DLC is Lost and Damned which adds something to an already big game, and Fallout 3′s Operation Anchorage.
18/03/2009 at 10:03 Lu-Tze says:
A few points…
DLC where it is an unlock for stuff on the disk is pretty much unacceptable. The major problem with this is that the internet fuels ignorance and misinformation on it, and loads of these cases are wrongly attributed (often even before the DLC is even released).
DLC that gives anyone a measurable advantage in competitive online games is also unacceptable. Cosmetic changes and different game modes are pretty much all you can offer.
I actually don’t mind the Skate 2/Tiger Woods method of saying “fine, if you don’t want to unlock everything properly then just pay us some money”. Yeah, once upon a time that might’ve been a cheat, and it might “devalue” the fact your earn something properly when other people have bought it, but I think it’s a fine take it or leave it approach because it doesn’t offer you anything you can’t get for free. They aren’t trying to “trick” people into thinking it’s new content, they know they could earn it.
A lot of people complain when some premium DLC comes out close to the launch of a game (see RE5), demanding that it be free due to the proximity of launch (must have been features held back!). Typically, i’d expect that, using RE5 as a case point, the game was probably in Alpha and beyond the point where they could add the features at least 4 or 5 months before the time you see it on the shelves. Depending on how hectic the submission and testing period is, given submission and production schedules you are still looking at a good couple of months from when the game is finished to you having it in your hand. That’s plenty of time to write additional modes such as this (and again in the case of RE5, i’d say the additional work done on the multiplayer enabled them to supply Online Co-Op Mercanaries as a free update on launch day).
I think there’s also a large comparison to companies like Criterion and their Burnout DLC, or Valve and their continued support for games with a cry of “why can’t every company do this”. Well, Criterion supported Burnout Paradise for free for a long time and probably reaped a long period of increased sales from it, but now they’ve started selling new vehicles individually, presumably because they saw that start to slow down. Valve equally have shown that the TF2 purchases go up a huge percentage when they release one of the new update packs. I can’t believe that neither of these companies, and all others, don’t do a simple cost/revenue analysis of this extra work and decide if they think it’s worth it or not. I think it’s almost certainly a fallacy to state that all these add-ons would be free were it not for the concept of paid for DLC.
The Lost and Damned recieves a lot of praise for being excellent DLC, but at £16 it’s as expensive as buying a second hand copy of GTAIV, and you can’t trade it in at your local game store when you are done, or lend it to your friend, the pricing is fixed and you don’t actually get any physical product (and hope that your HDD doesn’t break). It is by far the fastest selling DLC, and I wonder if it might actually have proved more profitable than if they made it a cheap (say, £25) retail expansion.
Finally, my biggest single fear about DLC for PC games is that developers might start trying to put in stuff to block user modifications. User made levels, models, skins, mods, all of that are the lifeblood of many games, keeping them alive far better than the publishers do. But, they also act as direct competition in many of the areas they would wish to provide DLC.
A few thoughts/comments, which no-one will ever read because it’s buried so deep.
18/03/2009 at 10:18 Heliocentric says:
Some developers WILL and indeed already have blocked mods for the sake of dlc and expansions, for example Relic limited the maximum map size for no good reason so they can increase it in an expansion or sequel. And relic are not bastards compared to the likes of Codemasters who charge you for cheats even.
18/03/2009 at 10:18 Dinger says:
First off, there’s nothing wrong with a company trying to sell Horse Armour, nor is it anything new. There’s nothing wrong with a company trying to sell a game at $20,000/copy, either.
Second, just because a company tries to make money on Horse Armour doesn’t mean that it will. That was my point above: When there were tape-based games (yes, I do remember those, and I also remember that the home console of Pong was widely available before any home PC), there could be no expansions, especially when the thing was coded in BASIC, as with the classic Starfleet Orion; it had a sequel, Invasion Orion, which was sold in a separate baggie.
Switch to floppies, and it becomes possible to sell expansions. The Flight Simulator series had them in the early early eighties, for example, with map packs and high-detail terrain.
With the arrival of the internet, it’s only natural to expect someone to try to monetize DLC.
But, as Rich_P’s anecdote illustrates, and the quote from Mark Morris underscores (even though it’s adduced in a non-sequitur fashion, it is pertinent to my point at least), selling DLC doesn’t make much sense for most games. “The long tail” isn’t by itself a profitable one. By the time you come out with DLC, most people have moved on to the next game. Some people might come back for the exciting combat opportunities that horse armour offers, but most are just going to keep moving. As a result, DLC has to be overpriced to be worth it to the developer.
Adding content for free and having online distribution, however, will cause a spike in players (as those who moved on return to see what’s new), and probably new sales.
But again, as Mr. Morris would point out, even with all those things, Multiwinia still isn’t setting the world on fire. Who’s going to give an indie game a shake when UT3 is free this weekend?
18/03/2009 at 11:04 bansama says:
…compared to the likes of Codemasters who charge you for cheats even.
Yeah, since they tired that with Jericho I have never bought a game from Codemasters again. That was just low and I can’t support it. I won’t be fuel at release either, just so I can wait and see if they pull the same sort of stunt with that. If they do, then no matter how much I like the look of it, they won’t get a sale from me.
Some things are great as DLC, but not cheat modes that are already in the damn game.
18/03/2009 at 11:07 Iain says:
@Ginger Yellow:
Is Entrenchment DLC for Sins or an expansion?
Stardock are calling it a “micro-expansion”; I’m playing this at the moment, and I’d definitely have to side on calling it DLC. In an expansion you’d expect new scenarios or campaigns, but since SOASE didn’t really have one to begin with (at least not in terms of a written narrative), all you get with Entrenchment is a new tech tree, a few new units and the ability to build starbases. At $10/£7, that could be seen as being a bit steep, but I haven’t really played enough with the new units to see what kind of difference they make to the balance of the game.
The starbases are pretty awesome as to how you can upgrade them (and don’t impact on your supply resource) but I’m waiting to see if they can hold off an attack by a couple of capital ships yet…
18/03/2009 at 11:39 catska says:
Oh how the tune has changed around here regarding DLC now that Steam can finally provide to developers what the consoles have for 3 years now.
Do all of you want games to just be dropped from the developer mindshare once they are released? Do you realise that a full fledged, retail expansion costs millions of dollars and a publisher commitment (not likely)? DLC lets devs make some extra content for the game (the aforementioned ‘micro-expansions’) and make some extra money doing it. Newsflash: content costs money to create.
Quite funny how DLC gets the ARGH EVIL CONSOLES typical RPS response, but when Stardock, magical warriors of the PC platform, release ‘micro-expansions’ it’s perfectly OK. Guess what: Developers weren’t not bringing DLC to PC games because they didn’t want to, they didnt bring it because they couldn’t. There was no standardized, safe platform to get these expansions out like they could on XBL or PSN.
Most likely they would have had to set up their own store on their own website and just have users download an installer with no security, then have it shared and pirated to high hell on .
I for one am glad that PC devs now have this service. Lost and Damned is a prime example of DLC done right, as is the Prince of Persia expansion which wasn’t brought to the PC for the reasons listed above. I don’t see why anyone would be against something like this. All it does is let developers add things to the game and receive enough money in return to support themselves doing it. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
18/03/2009 at 12:16 Dinger says:
Catska — One thing I can say about most PC gamers is that they are able to read. So, for example, of the 79 comments in this thread, only one has what you qualify as the “typical RPS response”, and a handful of others lament the state of consoles with DLC: how vendor lock-in is being used to monetize the crap out of things (here’s what Harvard Business School still hasn’t figured out: charging for what used to be an included service diminishes the value of the original product).
So we have some saying that DLC cheapens the original product; others arguing that horse armor is bad business; many distinguishing (and I count you among them) between crass monetizing and useful expansions; others still upset that the bad ideas from the world of XBLA and PSN are coming to steam, and then a whole lot of people who don’t see what the problem is.
There is no typical response, outside of a general dislike of the Oblivion Horse Armor expansion.
18/03/2009 at 12:27 TwistyMcNoggins says:
Here is my problem with DLC
http://www.elderscrolls.com/downloads/updates_plugins.htm
Eight (fairly small) mods released for free from the same company that made the Horse Armour DLC. I have no problem with paying for downloadable content that offers the same amount of fun as a normal expansion pack, but it appears that simply by there being a system in place that allows developers to profit from such small updates, we’re going to lose these little gifts.
You can’t complain about that at all, really. You certainly don’t have a right to these things (Unless they’re on the disc, that’s just wrong) and there’s no reason for developers to give away stuff they’ve worked on for free. But back in the olden days, there was nothing but good will for Bethesda. They released excellent expansions for Morrowind and had good links with the community. Now there’s gigabytes of forum hatred from all over the webbernet aimed at them.
If anything, DLC in its current form is worse for the developers than the consumers , as they lose excellent chances of increasing customer loyalty for the sake of a few pennies.
18/03/2009 at 12:50 Legionary says:
>The price doesn’t seem bad for Americans at $1.25, but just like the main game ($10 there, £9 here), we Britishers are miserably mistreated – I know the exchange rate isn’t on much to our favour these days, £1.10 is scarcely equivalent to $1.25. But this is incidental moaning.
To be honest Alec, this is not incidental moaning. It’s somewhat fundemental to what DLC is. The fact that it’s 100% more expensive for people in the UK is a rather large fly in the DLC ointment. We’ve all know that being in the UK we get ripped off with the price of games, but we shouldn’t be satisfied with simply saying ‘oh well’.
I won’t be buying any DLC that penalizes British gamers, and you shouldn’t either.
18/03/2009 at 14:02 dhex says:
“If anything, DLC in its current form is worse for the developers than the consumers , as they lose excellent chances of increasing customer loyalty for the sake of a few pennies.”
that’s my general take. good for them for having a go at it and all – maybe someone will figure out a way to make it work, and balance the payoffs with customer satisfaction – but it’s definitely not my cup of tea.
18/03/2009 at 14:21 Man Raised By Puffins says:
@Lu-Tze:
Not sure what you’re getting at with regards to the pricing. The price point seemed bang-on for the 12 hours of game I got, that you can pick up the base game for a similar price is hardly suprising given it’s been out for nearly a year. Fair point about not being able to re-sell or share it though, but that’s really a wider sticking point with digital downloads than a Lost and Damned, or even DLC, specific issue. For what it’s worth I’ve got no problems with the lack of re-sale, I still own all of the games I’ve ever bought, but not being able to lend downloaded games does bug me from time to time.
18/03/2009 at 14:44 DigitalSignalX says:
I don’t mind DLC’s so much, probably because I’ve played free to play games a lot where paying for extras is the actual business model. There, deciding what you do and don’t pay for is part of the process of enjoying the game.
With regular 3A titles, the process is similar, I don’t feel entitled to extras just because I purchased the game. I do feel entitled to patches and updates for the existing content though.
My worry is that developers may blur that line, or focus on DLC’s instead of entirely new games. Why employ the risk of a new IP, or even adding yet another sequel number to your flagship title when you can just ever-incrementally expand your existing product for no risk.
18/03/2009 at 14:44 chesh says:
A ten dollar game is too short at three hours? really?
As someone who paid $50 for Portal (and was pleased to find Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2 in the package as well), I find that hard to swallow.
18/03/2009 at 15:10 JonFitt says:
@cliffski:
“I wish more games had DLC. And I wish I could buy all games on a menu-basis. I never play campaigns in an RTS and I always skip cutscenes. I’d love an option to not pay for either part of the game.”
If you think DLC means you are going to be able to buy less of a game for less money and add more later, you’re living in la-la-land. The worrying thing is that you will get less game for the same money and then be offered the rest later.
I have heard reports from developers that they have been told to separate out some finished content before the game ships for packaging as DLC after launch.
I know games are expensive to make, and people can accept that time constraints may have forced a game to ship with 4 multiplayer maps, but finding out that they finished 8, but decided that your $50 only gets you 4, and the other 4 are extra, is going to piss people off.
It can be used as an underhanded way to up the cost of a game, offering the rest and calling it extra. That’s what worries me.
18/03/2009 at 16:26 Lu-Tze says:
@Man Raised By Puffins says:
If you only buy games at full retail price, then the price point is pretty good. My point was there’s a vast market out there for second hand sales, and price reduction on the high street, neither or which apply to DLC. I was using it basically as the example of the general problems with digital downloads, and how even the most extensive content provided at a (seemingly) reasonable price still has major drawbacks. However, those drawbacks affect the consumer, and benefit the publisher. Which means that even the shining star of DLC is still, looking at it cynically, a way that Rockstar could get more sales (at potentially more profit, it depends on how deals were worked out) by putting an expansion like this as DLC rather than retail, to the detriment of the “quality” of what we received (due to drawbacks of the medium).
18/03/2009 at 17:45 Jeremy says:
Skittles are so good.
18/03/2009 at 18:35 TheApologist says:
As long as it is more content and more choice it’s great. Glad it’s happening.
In fact my main annoyance with DLC so far has been platform exclusive DLC on multi-platform games (grrrr…Tomb Raider Underworld, and GTA4).
So the fact that the PC is on board is good with me :)
18/03/2009 at 20:15 Jeremy says:
Publishers need to somehow bridge the gap that musicians have already bridged. I buy CDs from musicians because I appreciate their art and don’t want them to be so poor that they can’t make more of the art I appreciate. Stealing music is the easiest thing in the world to do, but I make the choice not to because I like the music. If a game company that I love can keep their business running by offering me a choice to buy their extra content, then I am all for that.
There will be good and bad examples of it, no doubt, but as a whole we will have to see how things go. Thankfully, in spite of all the opinions we may have, it is still our choice to buy it or not.
18/03/2009 at 20:26 Smurfy says:
Okay Bethesda you can stop this GFW Live madness now.
18/03/2009 at 20:58 The Unshaven says:
DLC on its own is fine, its capacity to encourage unscrupulous companies to shave off content from games for DLC is an issue.
However, I’m not *entirely* certain that letting the market decide wouldn’t work.
In the RED CORNAH, we have Valve. Free ongoing updates for TF2, Left4Dead and their other staples. Result? They are beloved of the PC gaming community and we rub them with money.
IN THE BLUE CORNAH, we have some other company that the community *even percieves* is shaving content. Result? Angry Internet Men arrive en-masse and try to eat their faces.
Now, what is crucial here is the part that’s hard to predict.
A sensible human, considering these results, would change their tactics.
However, sensible humans haven’t done so regarding the howling shitstorms of incendiary discontent regarding some antipiracy measures, so clearly some other metric is being applied.
THAT’S the problem.
In part it comes down to the relationship between companies and their shareholders. Piracy is such an (imaginary) bugbear at the moment that corporations need to have a response if their shareholders as “What are you doing to protect our profits from piracy?”
Having an answer, even if it doesn’t do any good, is likely to be a bigger motivator than actual results.
If DLC becomes in vogue, companies could well feel pressured when shareholders ask “How are you using DLC to increase our profit margin?” *even if it isn’t.*
So yeah, there is a conflict between what is motivating the decisions being made, and actual results, in some of these cases.
18/03/2009 at 21:00 The Unshaven says:
Also, where I have decided not to go for the DLC for “The Maw,” if Act 5 for “World of Goo” were released over DLC, I would go for it.
18/03/2009 at 22:27 Y3k-Bug says:
I was thinking the same thing Unshaven.
Also I don’t think its a matter of getting DLC to “work” per se, as its been done on consoles now. It’s a matter of getting PC gamers to bite, since we have become quite accustomed to free updates to our games. A quick look at the massive shit storm when it was assumed that the Survival DLC update to Left 4 Dead would be a pay-for package shows that in many circles, its still quite taboo. But I quite like that shit storm, as it shows that PC gamers seem to be much more discerning than most; I really do believe that EA would not have even dreamed of releasing their games on Steam w/o DRM otherwise.
And I agree about the whole thing with making DLC out of content thats already physically on the disk, that is quite heinous.
Odious even!