[Shikoro]

Witcher 2 developer CD Projekt RED has stressed to VG247 that DLC should be viewed as a ‘post-sale service’ and therefore shouldn’t see any money changing hands. CD Projekt RED’s Konrad Tomaszkiewicz explained why gamers shouldn’t be paying for post-release digital content, given their bite sized nature, “We’ve always believed in free DLCs. The thing is that we consider DLCs as a normal post sale service, which shouldn’t be priced. Back when retail games were dominant, we had expansion packs. These were really large chunks of content, which were worth their price.” “If today’s DLCs offered the same amount of content,” Tomaszkiewicz continued, “they would be worth paying for, but in most cases players think they are overcharged for what they receive. That’s why we offer expansions to our game for free. This is also a way of saying “thank you” to the people who decided to buy our game instead of copying it from an unauthorised source.”

Gotta love these guys.

EDIT: LOL, forgot the link to the article. XD
http://www.vg247.com/2012/08/09/cd-p...dnt-be-priced/

[CloudWolf]

It really depends on the type of game though. For instance, DLC for music games simply can't be free because of all the costs of licensing the songs.

[cw_sasuke]

Depends on the DLC of course it would be great if everything would be free - but not every DLC is the same.
Small add-ins like costumes should be free though.

[Shiggy]

Easy to say when your game is fundedsupported (edited) by European taxpayers.

I'd agree when it's some character costumes. But with some fully fledged as we've hot for Stacking or GTA4, paying money is fine.

[stuart]

Easy to say when your game is funded by European taxpayers. I'd agree when it's some character costumes. But with some fully fledged as we've hot for Stacking or GTA4, paying money is fine.

How are they funded by taxpayers?

[GoofsterStud]

Isn't this like the third month in a row they've said this.

I liked the spin last time, when they talked up how much goodwill they got with Witcher 2. How sales spiked, like mad as a result.

That version was better. :-)

I love these guys, and can't wait for the new Sci-fi title.

[TucoBenedictoPacifico]

Easy to say when your game is funded by European taxpayers.

Ehr..?

[overburning]

Fine if they want to say 'thank you' by me, but I think DLCs should be priced, the problem is more about how much they are charging. For example, no way I'm getting Missing Link for $15.

[benzy]

I wish these guys great financial success in the future.

[Bomber Bob]

Easy to say when your game is funded by European taxpayers.

Is that true?

BTW is totally possible in Europe to receive founds from the EU.

[JaseC]

This essentially mirrors Valve's belief that DLC should be free as to reward existing customers and entice others, which is something I can agree with.

Fine if they want to say 'thank you' by me, but I think DLCs should be priced, the problem is more about how much they are charging. For example, no way I'm getting Missing Link for $15.

The Missing Link is definitely worth the asking price, in my experience* -- with a stealth approach, I got approximately eight hours out of it. But, yes, I agree with your general sentiment that there is often a disconnect between the price of the DLC and the amount of content it offers. It's for this reason that I seldom buy paid DLC unless it's on sale.

* Full disclosure: I bought it at half price. ;)

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Is that true? BTW is totally possible in Europe to receive founds from the EU.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Different countries have different economies and work ethic. I don't expect a Polish company to work like an American one and vice versa.

[Castor Krieg]

I would say DLC within the first three months should not be priced, it is obvious this was created at the end of the game development cycle, when the master disk was locked-in.

If you created a good DLC to get people interested and not to sell their game for 3 months, then you can release any content you want and ask gamers to pay for that.


Regarding CDP - I come from Poland, and I think they are right, but man - it really gets tiring hearing them going on and on about DLC and prices, when you know how cheaper it is to make a game in Eastern Europe.

BTW is totally possible in Europe to receive founds from the EU.

Is this a question? It is possible, but it is a pain in the ass, and not much different than e.g. the government of Canada giving tax breaks to developers. AFAIK the process of applying for any EU funding project is long, tiresome, requires expertise and you still need to put up front % of your own money.

[stuart]

This essentially mirrors Valve's belief that DLC should be free as to reward existing customers and entice others, which is something I can agree with.

But didn't Valve charge for both Half-Life 2: Episode One and Half-Life 2: Episode Two?

[corporate cheerleader]

I would say DLC within the first three months should not be priced, it is obvious this was created at the end of the game development cycle, when the master disk was locked-in. If you created a good DLC to get people interested and not to sell their game for 3 months, then you can release any content you want and ask gamers to pay for that. Regarding CDP - I come from Poland, and I think they are right, but man - it really gets tiring hearing them going on and on about DLC and prices, when you know how cheaper it is to make a game in Eastern Europe.

Even though it's cheaper to make, they still don't charge for DLC even though they easily could have.

[Bomber Bob]

I don't expect a Polish company to work like an American one and vice versa.

Me neither. I just wanna know out of curiosity.

[Nibel]

I'll pay for full-fledged add-ons that will enhance my game experience

But I give a fuck about one or two missions which don't last 30 minutes

[Shiloa]

What point does DLC become an expansion pack?

[linkent]

Depends on the DLC of course it would be great if everything would be free - but not every DLC is the same. Small add-ins like costumes should be free though.

it's the other way round for me..

unnecessary dlc can be charged.. you like it you buy it..
but those that add extra story, hidden character,etc should not be charged..

[Hypron]

But didn't Valve charge for both Half-Life 2: Episode One and Half-Life 2: Episode Two?

Are you for real? These were much more than simple DLCs.

And here's the link to the full interview cited in the OP: link

[Sophia]

But didn't Valve charge for both Half-Life 2: Episode One and Half-Life 2: Episode Two?

Two episodes that were bundled together with three other great games, one of which being the original Half Life 2, and were more akin to expansion packs than DLC. Which is what Tomaszkiewicz mentioned in the original article.

Plus, it ignores all the free stuff they've given away over the years. :P

What point does DLC become an expansion pack?

There isn't a whole lot of difference in the long run really. Lots of "DLC" this generation has been more akin to full blown expansions (Fallout 3, GTA IV, Red Dead, etc)...

[Leonsito]

So a dev says that all DLC should be free, and there is people saying that not all should be, what the fuck guys?

[JaseC]

But didn't Valve charge for both Half-Life 2: Episode One and Half-Life 2: Episode Two?

The Episodes exist because they were originally intended to be, once all were done, a full-length Half-Life game split into three chunks.

[Sophia]

So a dev says that all DLC should be free, and there is people saying that not all should be, what the fuck guys?

Personally, I find that certain "cheap" DLC tends to really harm a game's length. Like the glasses and alternative colors for Persona 4 Arena. It just comes off as really lazy and makes your product seem incomplete.

And then there's Capcom...

[Castor Krieg]

So a dev says that all DLC should be free, and there is people saying that not all should be, what the fuck guys?

Because people can recognise the value and give credit where credit is due? Some DLC were created post-release, at a substantial cost. In the past devs would've just moved to next project, and gamers were left with "damn! I love this game, I wanted to play more!". Now with DLC you can play more.

[Shiggy]

How are they funded by taxpayers?

They received grants from a EU fund. I believe it was used to develop the initial Witcher 2 prototype.

[Serra]

While I agree that 95% of DLC these days is overpriced shit (horse armor...) more substantial expansions I think are worth paying for. Just like he said.

[subversus]

Easy to say when your game is funded by European taxpayers.

wat

They received grants from a EU fund. I believe it was used to develop the initial Witcher 2 prototype.

source? because it's not true

[HP_Wuvcraft]

So a dev says that all DLC should be free, and there is people saying that not all should be, what the fuck guys?

It's more a matter of "can it be?".

CDP is in a position where it can.

Regardless of whether you are EA or a small indie studio, DLC is a way to keep teams working. For that, income needs to keep flowing. So please keep your knee-jerk reactions at bay. Either that or actually read what people are writing.

[Sojgat]

Not only is he right, he doesn't go far enough. A lot of the current DLC crap out there (skins, weapons etc) would have just been part of the retail game in the past as unlockable extras. Just because there's now a way to monetise all this shit doesn't mean it's justified or even acceptable.

[Perkel]

Love Dragon Dogma but what Capcpcopm is doing with DLC to that game...

Seriously most of them are in armors and weapons which already are in game and most of those quests are just some fetch quests.

Should be free in my opinion.

This is also reason why i'm waiting for GOTY for most games. It's dev/publish loose that they release DLC. Because i won't buy their game for 60$ but for 30$ or less with all DLC included.

[Ichabod]

CD Projekt RED’s Konrad Tomaszkiewicz explained why gamers shouldn’t be paying for post-release digital content, given their bite sized nature, “We’ve always believed in free DLCs. The thing is that we consider DLCs as a normal post sale service, which shouldn’t be priced. Back when retail games were dominant, we had expansion packs. These were really large chunks of content, which were worth their price.” “If today’s DLCs offered the same amount of content,” Tomaszkiewicz continued, “they would be worth paying for, but in most cases players think they are overcharged for what they receive. That’s why we offer expansions to our game for free. This is also a way of saying “thank you” to the people who decided to buy our game instead of copying it from an unauthorised source.”

[smurfx]

if you have a game that depends on a big online community then i think free DLC is a good idea to keep the interest up. the bigger the community the more people will be willing to buy the game.

[Perkel]

They received grants from a EU fund. I believe it was used to develop the initial Witcher 2 prototype.

Source?

I believe any firm in EU can try to get some fund from EU into investments but it can't pay for salaries.

Also i live in Poland and i'm 99% sure there is no tax cut for gaming industry like in France or England.

[CloudWolf]

Because people can recognise the value and give credit where credit is due? Some DLC were created post-release, at a substantial cost. In the past devs would've just moved to next project, and gamers were left with "damn! I love this game, I wanted to play more!". Now with DLC you can play more.

Pretty much this. The DLC that should be free is DLC that's either released very soon after the initial release of the game and stuff that clearly was supposed to be in the game, but couldn't make it due to time constraints or whatever. Like the "locked memories" in Assassin's Creed 2.

That doesn't mean that I don't think they should lower the prices on some content though. Dawnguard is clearly overpriced at 20 dollars/euro.

[Ushojax]

I definitely think you got better value with expansion packs. Things like D2:Lord of Destruction, Mysteries of the Sith, etc would offer 15+ hours of new content, nowadays you're paying $10 for an hour long mission. Of course there are DLCs out there that offer good value, Fallout 3: Point Lookout, Undead Nightmare, they offer the same kind of value as old-school PC expansions but they are a rarity. Stuff like Dead Space 2: Severed is £5 for very minimal content.

[CecilRousso]

Sounds good, but I myself have problems with paying for DLC when its done right.

[Shiggy]

wat source? because it's not true

Cannot find it at the moment, but it must've been in late 2008/early 2009. The fund usually grants around 50% of the initial budget. Most games never materialize though as publishers often don't find these prototypes attractive. Realised projects include Max&the Magic Marker and Limbo.

Edit: This is the best I could find right now:
http://www.eikencluster.com/uploads/...DIA%20Desk.pdf

[7threst]

They're cool and all, the way they treat gamers, but isn't stuff like this going to come back hard at CD Projekt RED when they eventually do start to charge for DLC (if they are going to do that, of course)?

[Haunted]

What point does DLC become an expansion pack?

When there's enough content and it's a significant addition.

Think Oblivion's Shivering Isles, Fallout 3's and Mass Effect 2's story DLCs put together (too short on their own), RDR's Undead Nightmare or GTAIV's TLaD/BoGT.

Characters, costumes, items, guns, maps, single levels, cheats, single buildings and other bite-sized additions are not considered expansion packs on their own because there's not enough content to it.


CDProjekt is right that a ton of people think they're being overcharged given what they're used to, but there are people out there who just uncritically buy even overriced garbage DLC. And fuck, if you tell companies that, yes, you will buy that even if they charge more money for less content, they will abuse that.

Thank goodness we're seeing a bit of unified backlash against companies who try and push this too far (hello Capcom).

[Musiol]

There is no cut in taxes for game developers in Poland and getting money from UE is very hard and you've to guarantee your work and invest your money before UE event would look into a request.

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Pretty much this. The DLC that should be free is DLC that's either released very soon after the initial release of the game and stuff that clearly was supposed to be in the game, but couldn't make it due to time constraints or whatever. Like the "locked memories" in Assassin's Creed 2. That doesn't mean that I don't think they should lower the prices on some content though. Dawnguard is clearly overpriced at 20 dollars/euro.

Yeah.

Music games would not be as good if they did not have DLC. Not only for license fees, but because new music comes out all the time.

Team Fortress 2 would not be free to play without their microtransactions.

Shale wouldn't be in Dragon Age without DLC.

Prepurchase DLC helps stores get sales.

It's not like all DLC is a bad thing.

Don't get me started on Bethesda's pricing.

[Riposte]

Didn't The Witcher 2 cost an absurdly low amount to develop? I remember reading far below 20 million. If that's the case, then it is not like everyone can emulate their altruism and stay in business. (EDIT: Oh perhaps I should say, the positive PR is not enough for it to be worth it.)

[Glass Rebel]

I find it always pretty amusing when people are against free stuff. Companies won't just stop making DLC if you demand free DLC.

From my experience roughly 90% of the DLC is either overpriced or feels like it's been strapped from the main-game and it has affected my purchasing habits. It might be unfair but when I see a game like Sleeping Dogs with a page full of DLC I become hesitant to buy it at launch because I've been burnt in the past.

[Haunted]

Yeah. Music games would not be as good if they did not have DLC. Not only for license fees, but because new music comes out all the time. Team Fortress 2 would not be free to play without their microtransactions. Shale wouldn't be in Dragon Age without DLC. Prepurchase DLC helps stores get sales. It's not like all DLC is a bad thing. Don't get me started on Bethesda's pricing.

DLC itself isn't bad, but it needs to be either free (to build goodwill) or at the very least priced fairly.

Expansion packs were simple and easy to understand - a significant addition and expansion of the main game, which was usually around 40-50% of the length of the original game for roughly half the price of the original game.

Now you get some shit like Final Fantasy XIII-2'd DLC where you actually pay more (~$70) than the main game's RRP for a couple of costumes, weapon skins, coliseum battles and 3 single scenarios - all injected into the game on their own of course, since due to the nature of the delivery they cannot be part of a larger new narrative or anything. It's pretty disgusting.

I find it always pretty amusing when people are against free stuff. Companies won't just stop making DLC if you demand free DLC. From my experience roughly 90% of the DLC is either overpriced or feels like it's been strapped from the main-game and it has affected my purchasing habits. It might be unfair but when I see a game like Sleeping Dogs with a page full of DLC I become hesitant to buy it at launch because I've been burnt in the past.

That's not unfair at all and you should never have to apologise for being a consumer that looks out for himself.

It definitely turns me off a game.

[Rivyn]

I keep bringing back Borderlands in topics like this but I feel that BL's DLC always warranted the price because it expanded upon the universe and opened up new worlds, weapons, vehicles, loot and an increased level cap.

DLC i hate is the one where you need to spend $10+ for a couple of exclusive maps. I am looking at you Call of Duty.

[demidar]

Adding substantial post-launch content for free is a great model because the buyers feel like they're getting rewarded for their support (as it should be), the game becomes even more enticing for those who don't have the game (no shitty DLC hidden cost and discounts/sales), the developer gets lots of goodwill and positive PR, and people will line up day one for the next game because they know it will get good post-launch support.

But yeah, this cannot be applied wholesale over every game.

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I find it always pretty amusing when people are against free stuff.

Nobody is doing that.

What they are doing is being realistic.

[Kem0sabe]

Pre purchase DLC or DLC that is made available soon after releasem which are nothing more than purposely cut content from the final game to sell back to the consumer, are the only kind of DLC that i refuse to deal with. I won´t support products that go out of their way to fuck consumers.

Dawnguard on the other hand, that´s another Horse armor level dick move by Bethesda, they claimed that they would have fewer but larger expansion level DLC for Skyrim, instead we got an overpriced mod to the game that adds nothing to the overall experience.

Going back to topic, idiotic Cyberpunk announcement not withstanding, these guys are my favorite devs, and this is why... they support their community, acting with the knowledge that gamers are what brake or make a game developer and these customers should be coddled and appreciated as much as possible.

[Perkel]

It's more a matter of "can it be?". CDP is in a position where it can. Regardless of whether you are EA or a small indie studio, DLC is a way to keep teams working. For that, income needs to keep flowing. So please keep your knee-jerk reactions at bay. Either that or actually read what people are writing.

There is true in your words but i can't agree overall.

Just look for games like Minecrat or Terraria. People bought it and still there are new updates with new content. People go back to play game and their friends notice that he play mostly Minecraft. So his friend is curious and buy Minecraft as well.

That is what CDPR are trying to do. Just for you to remember they sold 500k of The Witcher (original) in 2011. Game is from 2007. They updated it for free (enchanced edition) gave a lot of extras. Now their first game is above 2mln. The more people play the game the more people know about game and try to play it.

That's their strategy and they proven that it's working.

edit:
As for Witcher 2 i think they will reach lifetime 4-5 mln.