Support NeoGAF

[jonah777]

Why are some of you even looking at this from a business perspective? I think some of the guys defending this shit just like playing Devil's Advocate. The decision by devs or pubs to place additional content on a disc and charge you for that content later is purely a business strategy. What's in it for gamers?

The only way I, as a customer, can determine a product's value is if I'm informed of all that is contained on the disc prior to purchasing. If they don't bother indicating that, then how the fuck can I make a purchase decision based on some perceived value? If the alternative is for devs to remove this content from the disc, then so-fucking-be-it. It'll likely cost them more to have this content made available on the Marketplace. LOL @ those that think they put this stuff on disc to make it more convenient for us.

 

[Nemesis_]

It's not DLC. It's an unlock. And how the fuck is charging for content you already have a business model?

I think he's trying to say that you don't OWN the content, you own a license to use specific content on the disc. When you purchase DLC/Unlocks, you purchase an additional license to access that content on the disc for yourself too. The method of delivery is irrelevant.

Spoiler

I have no stance on this, I'm just trying to interpret. >_>

 

[akachan ningen]

Here's why it's fucked up: In most cases it seems like the DLC is stuff that would have been included in the normal game, if it was a last generation game. If it's EXTRA content, then fine, chage for it. But if it's EXTRA, then why is it done before the game ships? If the base game is done, then start getting ready to ship it. More imprtantly, if they have extra TIME to work on DLC then they should be be trying to improve the base game, getting rid of glitches, frame drops, etc. These days it seems like no game is working properly one day one and gets patched eventually.

And by the way, "voting with your wallet" doesn't work because the blind dipshits will always outnumber the savvy consumer, so this is going to keep happening.

 

[The On Timers]

You guys...wtf.

Theres no justifying it. If I pay 60, I want it all.

 

[Susurrus]

I can only imagine on Super Smash Bros Brawl if I had to pay for some of the characters and levels instead of unlocking them from playing. :lol

Glad Nintendo has some pride in itself.

Spoiler

I'm really just giving a recent example for those that are a little slow

 

[jaypah]

lol, that's just crazy. so who's to blame here, pubs or MS? i see XBM in the thread title but individual companies in the actual posts. also some games that are brought up are also on PS3. so the Soul Caliber DLC was already on the 360 disc but not the PS3 disc? how did they manage to pull that off?

 

[Wolves Evolve]

People defending this, and developers: listen to me. I'm a warlock. If you continue to argue for the holding back of content on a product I purchase, I'm going to curse you with my warlock powers.

Like, people actually justifying this makes me puke. The game is ready to go at a date, I enter a transaction, I get the game. There's extra stuff available, finished, for this game which I've been excited for, which I'm willing to pay inflated prices for, which I'm sometimes willing to pre-order. This extra stuff is ready to go. This type of DLC lies dormant until the publisher decides to gouge it, and then charges me for it. So yes, I buy a game and I don't know what missing, but its a fundamental violation of the transaction.

If I run a cafe, and you come in and order a 'big breakfast' - AND I DONT TELL YOU WHAT IS IT IN, and I give you sausages, eggs, tomatoes and mushrooms. Then, as you're finishing up, I say, hey, we also serve bacon and spinach with that breakfast, but its an extra 4 bucks - would you not, at the very clown-punching least, expect that I would tell you about the option front up?

 

[pr0cs]

So people would be happy if they left stuff off the disc and you wasted time to download it instead?
You have no idea if the stuff is done at the time of the release, only the developer knows that so you'd rather them just leave it off the disc and make you download it all so you feel better?

That is some really crazy reasoning.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

No, pr0cs, that's not what I'd like at all. I'd like them to do one of the following:

- Treat me with a bit of respect option one : Tell me what the DLC is before I buy the game. I would then not care how I get it, disc or otherwise. I would merely know that the product I am buying is incomplete, and can judge whether or not I want it.
- Treat me with a bit of respect option two : Just go ahead include everything thats finished in my initial purchase for the price they think that's fair.
- Fuck themselves.


This is not like a film then coming out with a special edition six months later. These are aspects of the game, in which the multitude of options is part of the fun, being held off until I pay some more. Have you actually played Need For Speed Carbon? Do you think thats okay? I refer you to my previous statement vis a vis warlock curses.

 

[mikekennyb]

The in game unlockable stuff, like buying EXP in an RPG or whatever which you can unlock in the game, fine. If people want to be idiots and spend money on that then they have my blessing to waste their money.

But buying stuff which is already on the disc, and can only be unlocked by a download is just ridiculous. It's a little like buying some 80's/early 90's shareware for FULL PRICE, and then having to pay again to unlock it. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[pr0cs]

Tell me what the DLC is before I buy the game. I would then not care how I get it, disc or otherwise. I would merely know that the product I am buying is incomplete, and can judge whether or not I want it.

In the case of EA games, the biggest proponent of DLC abuse I would agree with that.

I would also like that the 2 sentence description of the DLC content you're about to buy be expanded, a short video or screenshots showing what you get would be nice.

But buying stuff which is already on the disc, and can only be unlocked by a download is just ridiculous. It's a little like buying some 80's/early 90's shareware for FULL PRICE, and then having to pay again to unlock it. Absolutely ridiculous.

The problem is you as a consumer don't know when stuff is done so they could just leave it off the disc and release it a week or 2 later and make you download it. That is worse because they wasted your time and bandwidth as well.

 

[3rdman]

I agree that this is a pretty lousy tactic to gain extra cash...On the other hand, anyone who pays a single penny for a different texture to be applied on their character deserves their poverty..."a fool and their money are soon parted" as the saying goes.

 

[AtomicShroom]

Here's why it's fucked up: In most cases it seems like the DLC is stuff that would have been included in the normal game, if it was a last generation game. If it's EXTRA content, then fine, chage for it. But if it's EXTRA, then why is it done before the game ships? If the base game is done, then start getting ready to ship it. More imprtantly, if they have extra TIME to work on DLC then they should be be trying to improve the base game, getting rid of glitches, frame drops, etc. These days it seems like no game is working properly one day one and gets patched eventually.

I hope you realize that there's a good two months between when a game gets stabilized (no major changes made), sent to certification, sent to manufacturing, sent to store and sold.

In those two months, artists have plenty of time to produce additional content. This is usually the content you see on launch day.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

I hope you realize that there's a good two months between when a game gets stabilized (no major changes made), sent to certification, sent to manufacturing, sent to store and sold.

In those two months, artists have plenty of time to produce additional content. This is usually the content you see on launch day.

I've always looked at DLC this way. I don't see the problem with that, but I always see people flipping the dang out when DLC is released so soon after retail release.

 

[Mrbob]

Mario there is a difference between developing a full scale expansion and paying for keys for tiny trinkets.

If you are going to offer more content in the terms of an actual campaign...that is one thing. This sounds like a real game expansion, something like you would see on the PC. If you are going to charge me two dollars to unlock a damn sword, or gun or tiny add on which is already on the disc (or download) this is beyond ridiculous. Just is just robbing your fanbase for all they are worth.

I can't wait for the xbox live marketplace to grow up.

 

[Facism]

It's in the EULA of every game you buy.

I don't see any EULA's with my PS3/360 games. Just rifled through a few manuals.

I'm sure there's some overarching EU legislation on the matter?

 

[Etelmik]

I can't wait for the xbox live marketplace to grow up.

You're really sure that's going to happen?

 

[plagiarize]

I don't see any EULA's with my PS3/360 games. Just rifled through a few manuals.

I'm sure there's some overarching EU legislation on the matter?

it's the same with all software i believe.

remember shareware back in the day? that was kind of similar. and what you see now with Office and Vista install discs. each contains all the versions, but you can only install the version you paid for.

i don't see why that's so hard to comprehend. when a collectors edition has more content than the regular version, obviously that content could have been in the regular version, but you don't see people complaining there about content being held back to be sold for more profit elsewhere.

it's just a matter of perspective. i don't see a difference between paying for content and paying for a license to use content. all i care about as a consumer isn't the delivery method or when it was finished it's whether or not that thing is priced well.

i don't care if Tomb Raider Underground is the length it is cause they held off finished content to sell as a download down the line. whether they did that or not it's still a bit short for me to want to pay full price for.

just look at the content the download gets you access to, and ask yourself if that content is worth paying the asking price for. same thing for the base game.

you aren't buying a disc with zeros and ones on it. you're buying a GAME.

 

[Facism]

yes yes y'all

Alright fair enough, i was hoping for a link or two so i can do some 'light' reading after i get back from work today I don't really care too much about buying DLC, i don't usually buy any of it unless i have a really deep involvment with the game, like MGO and Gears of War 1.

You do get those occasional games, like TRU, where they'e talk about a 'true' ending being available for purchase, which essentially lead my Pounds Sterling for a new game elsewhere. I'll probably buy it second hand cheap cheap eventually.

 

[DRock]

Well, I'll pose an actual situation with some questions to get some feedback on the "developed before the game was finished part" (I'll need to approach the other issue differently). This is something some people don't like, and you are saying developers should stop doing it because of that.


Our studio is currently developing a console download title. This title has a single player self contained "campaign" amongst other modes and content. We already have our price point worked out for this title, and we consider it fair value for the size of the game and the cost of development.

The content for this single player campaign is undergoing final polish and is almost finished, but we still have a bit of work to do on various other technical aspects of the game so development will continue for some time.

As part of our business model, we are looking how we can leverage our original IP. With an art/sound/music/level design team now coming free, we are considering investing more in this particular IP and using this freed resource to develop a second standalone campaign with new art, animations, music, and levels. This will consume development time and will cost real money. If this goes ahead, we would plan to deliver it in the form of a seperate expansion as a paid download. It is also likely given the remaining development time on the base product and the scale of the content team that this expansion content would be finished before the base product is finished and released.

We would only put this expansion content into production if we have the ability to recoup development costs against it by charging for it. If we don't put the expansion into production now, the content team will be assigned elsewhere and the chance of us doing any expansion for it is greatly dimished. One of the reasons for this last point is console manufacturers prefer you to submit base products and expansion content at the same time for format QA, but really if we roll the content team off now, the cost of doing an expansion in the future increases and we'd only do it if the base product is wildly successful.



Questions:

Should we begin developing the expansion content before we ship the base product? If not, why not?

Should we bundle this additional campaign into the base product for the same price we originally set? If so, why?

Should we release this expansion on the day of the release of the base product? If not, why not?




I'd suggest you are a consumer trying to apply the paradigm of ownership of a physical object inappropriately to the licensing or ownership of a digital creative work.

I'm also a consumer, and I don't care when content is made and whether a key unlocks the content or not.

Quoting this because not a single person replied to it and I believe it is a valid point for this side of the argument.

Spoiler

I hate unlocks, but I'm staying neutral on this

 

[epmode]

Why in the fuck of all that is fuckful are people defending this?

Astounding, isn't it? That's why I usually stay out of these threads.

You'll always find someone defending a bullshit anti-consumer practice on this forum.

 

[kodt]

When you purchase a game you are really purchasing a license to play it, you don't actually own the game. They can put whatever they want on the disc and then state in the EULA that you are not allowed to access it.

The only situation you should be angry about is if they developed content for the full game intending for it to be included with the full game, and then the publisher decided that they should lock out the content and charge for it via DLC. Of course we won't know unless a developer comes out and says this happened.

 

[epmode]

When you purchase a game you are really purchasing a license to play it, you don't actually own the game. They can put whatever they want on the disc and then state in the EULA that you are not allowed to access it.

How does the fact that this is legal make it any less infuriating? God bless Valve.

 

[Vaandaviii]

The keys that cost money are not evil, are just a shame.

The real evil are the free keys, because they force you to access the marketplace in order to get free content already on the disc and act as a troll

 

[rohlfinator]

Seems like the entire crux of the argument against on-disc paid unlockables is the assumption that if they didn't exist, publishers would give us the same content for free.

Which is an awfully naive assumption, IMO.

 

[jonah777]

it's the same with all software i believe.

remember shareware back in the day? that was kind of similar. and what you see now with Office and Vista install discs. each contains all the versions, but you can only install the version you paid for.

i don't see why that's so hard to comprehend. when a collectors edition has more content than the regular version, obviously that content could have been in the regular version, but you don't see people complaining there about content being held back to be sold for more profit elsewhere.

The difference is that the additional content in the examples you give are all disclosed as being included in the medium you purchase. Game developers wouldn't dare do this because they know many gamers would sooner wait for a price drop then purchase a game day one with inaccessible content. Also, Vista & Office are closer to necessities than games are. Collector's editions are usually priced higher than their standard counterparts.

it's just a matter of perspective. i don't see a difference between paying for content and paying for a license to use content. all i care about as a consumer isn't the delivery method or when it was finished it's whether or not that thing is priced well.

i don't care if Tomb Raider Underground is the length it is cause they held off finished content to sell as a download down the line. whether they did that or not it's still a bit short for me to want to pay full price for.

just look at the content the download gets you access to, and ask yourself if that content is worth paying the asking price for.

So long as you keep thinking this is only about delivery method, they'll just continue to find new ways to charge you for content that *should* be included in the final production of a game. Keep in mind we are talking about content that is included on the disc only because that is the way we get the overwhelming majority of our console games. That Behemoth has the balls to include additional content within their downloadable game and charge you for it speaks volumes about where this shit is headed.

 

[Icarus]

Seems like the entire crux of the argument against on-disc paid unlockables is the assumption that if they didn't exist, publishers would give us the same content for free.

Which is an awfully naive assumption, IMO.

This. Basically, that stuff was funded out of some expectation of future revenue. If that revenue wasn't there, that content wouldn't exist, regardless of the delivery mechanism.

 

[vg260]

Seems like the entire crux of the argument against on-disc paid unlockables is the assumption that if they didn't exist, publishers would give us the same content for free.

Which is an awfully naive assumption, IMO.

Exactly. It's been said a million times, but there's really no difference if paid content is on the disc or on the developer's hard drive. The fact is they already produced it. Either way it's dormant and you'll have to pay for it eventually. In this situation, if you had to choose between having it on the disc or having to download it, isn't it preferred to have it on the disc? Of course, that scenario sucks either way.

So I think the location is irrelveant.

The issue is that the developers are making content before the game ships, sitting on it with the intent to charge you later (whether on the disc or on their computers), and that definitely does suck, no arguments here.

 

[kodt]

How does the fact that this is legal make it any less infuriating? God bless Valve.

It doesn't, but the point is you should be trying to get the law changed if you don't like it and not just complaining on a video game forum. I think the people "defending" this practice are just trying to point out that it is legal in order to give some perspective.

Again as others have said people seem to think that without microtransactions this content would have been free, but we do not know that. It is more likely the content was developed because of microtransactions where as before it would have just been scrapped.

There are a few developers where I think it is valid to complain though. Bethesda and Epic. Bethesda created free add-on content for Morrowind on PC but decided to charge for add-on content on Oblivion through Xbox Live Marketplace. Epic released several large quality map packs for UT99, UT2003, and UT2004. But changed its ways with the Gears series on 360.

The issue is that the developers are making content before the game ships, sitting on it with the intent to charge you later (whether on the disc or on their computers), and that definitely does suck, no arguments here.

The only issue with this is that we don't know if the development time for this content was only approved with the expectation of income through microtransactions. Of course it is annoying to know there is content on the disc that you can't access, I agree with that.

 

[pr0cs]

Exactly. It's been said a million times, but there's really no difference if paid content is on the disc or on the developer's hard drive. The fact is they already produced it. Either way it's dormant and you'll have to pay for it eventually. In this situation, if you had to choose between having it on the disc or having to download it, isn't it preferred to have it on the disc? Of course, that scenario sucks either way.

So I think the location is irrelveant.

The issue is that the developers are making content before the game ships, sitting on it with the intent to charge you later (whether on the disc or on their computers), and that definitely does suck, no arguments here.

I agree 100%.
As a consumer I agree with your last statement as well but we're at their whim and we have to decide if we're willing to pay extra for stuff that we perceive to be worth the value.

 

[plagiarize]

The difference is that the additional content in the examples you give are all disclosed as being included in the medium you purchase.

that's a difference but i don't see why it matters.

Game developers wouldn't dare do this because they know many gamers would sooner wait for a price drop then purchase a game day one with inaccessible content. Also, Vista & Office are closer to necessities than games are.

so?

Collector's editions are usually priced higher than their standard counterparts.

that was my entire point. people happily pay more for a copy of the game containing content that was finished in time to be included at $60 for everyone! ZOMG CONTROVERSY. the only difference is that it's either downloaded with a code or included on a second disk that isn't in the retail version. fact is, that content was ready at the same time and people pay extra to get it. which is the same end result as putting out a game with that content on the disk and charging $10 extra to unlock it.

So long as you keep thinking this is only about delivery method, they'll just continue to find new ways to charge you for content that *should* be included in the final production of a game. Keep in mind we are talking about content that is included on the disc only because that is the way we get the overwhelming majority of our console games. That Behemoth has the balls to include additional content within their downloadable game and charge you for it speaks volumes about where this shit is headed.

it speaks volumes about how you see games. i look at the price of a game and think 'am i getting my money's worth?' you look at a game and think 'are they robbing me of extra content that was already finished in time to go into the game?'.

take the horse armour in oblivion. a horribly overpriced piece of DLC that was probably finished before the game went gold, or if it wasn't could have certainly been put in if someone had worked through their lunch one day.

whether that was on the disc, off the disc, available day one or not, it was horribly overpriced... BUT IT DOESN'T REMOTELY EFFECT THE VALUE OF OBLIVION AS AN OUT OF THE BOX GAME. for $60 you were getting months of game play whenever that horse armour was complete and however it was delivered.

there is no rule saying 'if content is finished in time to go on the disk it should'. nor should there be. people should make up their minds if a game is worth paying for based on whether or not it is worth paying for. if a game doesn't have an ending because they cut it from the game and want to sell it me later, or just because they didn't have time to put one on or whatever, it doesn't make a difference to me as a consumer. it has no ending. i will not buy it at full price.

me not being against on disk unlockables in principle doesn't hurt gaming one bit, because if the base game minus the unlockables is gimped, i won't buy it. if the unlockables are optional stuff priced nicely, i will. if they are overpriced, i won't buy them.

making a stink over on disc unlockables won't stop game companies holding back content to sell at a later date. it'll just force you to spend longer downloading and installing it, and in some cases will false people that don't want the content to have to download the shagging stuff too so that they can still play online with people that have it.

that's all this bitching will achieve. fight against over priced games. fight against over priced DLC. fighting against DLC finished in time to go on the disc is pointless because if we win the fight we achieve NOTHING positive.

 

[Koren]

let it be the fact that if the game content you bought from the marketplace was exactly 108.00 KB, you just got suckered into buying a "key" to unlock content that is already sitting on your DVD!

108kB is pretty large for a key... I'm wondering whether the downloads have to be divided into "size units", meaning you can't create downloads under this size.

If this is true, some of the downloads you list may be actual content not on the disc (you could store some small costumes, characters or goodies in 108kB). I'm not saying that's any better, but...

Is there downloads smaller than 108kB ?

 

[M3wThr33]

108kB is pretty large for a key... I'm wondering whether the downloads have to be divided into "size units", meaning you can't create downloads under this size.

If this is true, some of the downloads you list may be actual content not on the disc (you could store some small costumes, characters or goodies in 108kB). I'm not saying that's any better, but...

Is there downloads smaller than 108kB ?

108kB is a key. This is established. Don't argue.

 

[John_B]

and what you see now with Office and Vista install discs. each contains all the versions, but you can only install the version you paid for.

Then make different versions of the game, don't make me pay 2 measly dollars to use a fucking wallpaper that is already part of the installation.

They could easily make 3 versions of Gears of War:

1. Single Player Game License 40$
2. Multiplayer Game License 40$
3. Complete Game License 60$

I would love for good developers to make good money, but don't feed us this fucking 2 weapon skins for 2$ bullshit. If you want to make some extra $ then make some extra content that is actually worth purchasing. Some of the stuff out there is an embarrasment and done better by kids in the PC modding community, for free even.

 

[DMeisterJ]

Is LBP DLC on the disc?

Everytime I buy costumes it's a small download (1 MB, iirc). Every single pack.

 

[KTallguy]

If you want to recoup costs with extra content, leave it off the disc. If stuff is on the disc, I don't want to have to pay money to unlock it.

The location isn't relative for the publisher, but it is relative in not pissing the fuck out of the consumer. If a consumer understands that they are paying for a key to unlock content they technically have in their possession, the fact that ill-will comes of this realization should only surprise the dumbest of the dumb.

If publishers don't want to include extra unlockable content without charging, that's fine. Just don't put it on the disc that I purchased, or it will come off as contrived and subversive.

I do miss the days where you'd beat the game and get some awesome new skins/modes.

 

[AMUSIX]

People are debating two different topics here.

One discussion is on companies overcharging for tiny extras (eg, $5 for two extra guns, or $2 for a costume, etc) and one is on companies delivering extra content on the physical disk.

Try not to confuse one with the other (I can see at least three posts on this page alone that do so).

That said, Mario's discussion of what his team is going through right now brings up the most valid questions here and only two people seem to have read it. I know most of you just gloss over any post more than 4 lines, but give it a read and then try answering his three questions.

edit: KTallguy does bring up a point. Consumers are morons and go off half-cocked on stuff they simply don't understand. If there's any reason not to put extra content on the disk, it's to avoid upsetting the idiots out there.

 

[Kasumi1970]

lol, that's just crazy. so who's to blame here, pubs or MS? i see XBM in the thread title but individual companies in the actual posts. also some games that are brought up are also on PS3. so the Soul Caliber DLC was already on the 360 disc but not the PS3 disc? how did they manage to pull that off?

THIS is Neo GAF MS is evil and Sony is good. This kind of thing is happning on both the 360 and PS3. I don't have a Wii yet so I don't know about Wii.

 

[JPBrowncoat]

Is LBP DLC on the disc?

Everytime I buy costumes it's a small download (1 MB, iirc). Every single pack.

I think they're all patched in ahead of time so that the cotume you wear appears to everyone even if they didn't buy it.

 

[Azure Dream]

Is LBP DLC on the disc?

Everytime I buy costumes it's a small download (1 MB, iirc). Every single pack.

The way I see it, there's bad DLC and good DLC.

Some of the LBP DLC is probably of the bad kind, but much of it was added after the game has shipped, as newly-developed content. Now to function properly online, everyone has to have the data for this content, but it's not so bad to expect a developer who keeps working after the game ships to charge a little extra for work past release. It's when developers go into it fully planning to create features that historically would've been unlockable, fully design and develop these features, and include them slumbering in the game data until a 108 KB unlock key tells them that the requisite toll has been payed.

The Castle Crashers DLC is a little bothersome because it's probably been ready since the game's release. And they even restricted a weapon that was freely tradable before with the new patch, so they could more effectively charge the DLC fee for it. With LittleBigPlanet, it's clear they're still developing new content for the game that wasn't finished when they shipped, so it's not so unreasonable to pay for that. And no one would fault Criterion or Valve for charging for their DLC work. (Funny how they've been the most giving of all.)

 

[KTallguy]

edit: KTallguy does bring up a point. Consumers are morons and go off half-cocked on stuff they simply don't understand. If there's any reason not to put extra content on the disk, it's to avoid upsetting the idiots out there.

I like your avatar, but I don't agree with your opinion.

It's the principle of the thing. Logistically, sure it makes more sense to put extra content on the disc rather than wasting bandwidth. But many things that are a slam dunk on paper will piss off people who feel like they've been ripped off.

The solution is simply to unlock all content that is on the disk through player action, and any content that comes with a fee should be separate files that are built to work with the game, like a patch.

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

You guys all realise you don't HAVE to buy DLC yeah?

Our hobby costs us thousands of dollars, a few bucks here and there isn't gonna kill anyone. Funny thing is, I'm one of the people who rarely buys DLC.

I either don't buy, or wait for it to become free. Except Crackdown DLC, I would have paid $50 for that shit. Crackdown is Crackdown.

 

[jonah777]

That said, Mario's discussion of what his team is going through right now brings up the most valid questions here and only two people seem to have read it. I know most of you just gloss over any post more than 4 lines, but give it a read and then try answering his three questions.

I read Mario's post and it brings up valid points concerning a developer's reasons for including separate, purchasable content on a disc. The things is... those points are of no concern to consumers. Everything he brought up is something his company needs to evaluate and proceed accordingly, with their interests in mind. The only thing that should matter to consumer is the end product and its value/cost. That's how capitalism works. In a perfect world, consumers have a say in what the developer decides to do, so I'll bite:

Should we begin developing the expansion content before we ship the base product? If not, why not?

So long as the content was never developed with the intent on including it within the base product, I don't really care when you decide to begin developing the expansion. Starting work on expansions while the core game is being bug-tested/polished is not a problem. Neither is finishing development of this content prior to release.

Should we bundle this additional campaign into the base product for the same price we originally set? If so, why?

If possible without compromising quality, yes. Added value to consumers, a group in which I'm included. And by "bundling into the base product" I take it to mean include access to this content at no additional charge, at any time.

Should we release this expansion on the day of the release of the base product? If not, why not?

No. You'll lose many potential buyers who feel slighted that the expansion was not included in the core game. You guys want to call people stupid for not knowing the details of development cycles, but in the end it can hurt developers more than it does the buyer. Perception is a big deal when it comes to selling a product which is why marketing exists. Unless you want a poor reputation amongst your buyers, keep the content at bay until sufficient time has passed for people to have experienced the core game and are ready for more. Then release the additional content through a separate medium and at a reasonable cost.

 

[radjago]

Questions:

Should we begin developing the expansion content before we ship the base product? If not, why not?

Should we bundle this additional campaign into the base product for the same price we originally set? If so, why?

Should we release this expansion on the day of the release of the base product? If not, why not?




I'd suggest you are a consumer trying to apply the paradigm of ownership of a physical object inappropriately to the licensing or ownership of a digital creative work.

A few thoughts.

I'm not privy to your cost structures, so I can't say whether it would be a profitable move to start development on expansion content. There are other options that aren't listed here.

You could develop the expansion content as a stand-alone game. I can't imagine the DLC for Gripshift sold nearly as much as a Gripshift: Expansion Content standalone game would have, but then again I'm not sure what the associated costs are there.

You could release the expansion content as a free add-on to spur sales of the original game when they start to lag.

I'm assuming that once content is certified, you are free to release it on your own schedule and by whatever means you choose. Adding unlockable single-player DLC to a downloadable game would bloat the file size and take up valuable hard drive space. For a disc-based game, I have more tolerance for your argument, but for downloadable games, it's inexcusable.

I agree with your sentiments regarding licensing. Most people don't understand how it works and equate purchasing a license for use with ownership.

 

[Jack Random]

some of this may be deceptive.

For example, for SC4, DLC characters or clothes absolutely need to have their assets available to all users or else online players will be unable to see them. There have been quite a few title updates for Soul Calibur 4 along the way, these updates may or may not have contained the assets for the DLC.


This should go for any game with an online component which would involve other users needing to render the content.

 

[Mario]

Thanks for your answers, guys. I'll respond once I get a handle on what a few others think.

But I just want to address this

I read Mario's post and it brings up valid points concerning a developer's reasons for including separate, purchasable content on a disc. The things is... those points are of no concern to consumers. Everything he brought up is something his company needs to evaluate and proceed accordingly, with their interests in mind. The only thing that should matter to consumer is the end product and its value/cost.

Well, thats not entirely true. You are suggesting that consumers are indeed concerned with the effort, timing, and intent of developers with respect to PDLC. Indeed, the perceived mindset of the developer/publisher seems to be the only issue here.

To remind again, whether the content is on the disk or not, and whether that content is finished before the base product or not, aside from the amount of data that may or may not be downloaded the consumer experience is the same when purchasing that content.

 

[kodt]

You mean like this?

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=3377102&postcount=47

yes exactly that

 

[John_B]

Consumers are morons and go off half-cocked on stuff they simply don't understand. If there's any reason not to put extra content on the disk, it's to avoid upsetting the idiots out there.

I doubt many hardcore gamers even realize that the 5$ map pack they just paid for was unlocked and not downloaded.

I know this is a seperate issue, and technically I have no problem with it, but I have some concern.

Will developers start to slim down the content of the real game to preserve something to sell? This is a risk, surely, it will weaken the core product, but it might make some extra money in the end. I don't think this will benefit the consumers in any way. All the stuff you would expect to be rewarded with in the game (extra skins, extra characters, extra weapons, extra whatever) might end up as stuff you need to buy instead.

I look at it like this, developers are already complaining about developing costs, so how many developers are really going to throw some serious money at DLC/Extra Content even before their game is released? So the developers taking advantage of this method will probably continue to peddle the same low quality content that we have seen so far. Content that seems to be stuff that was already intented to be in the game or not used at all.

What exactly do we as consumers gain? We can choose between paying more for the same amount of content, or pay the same for a less amount of content.

 

[mr jones]

I think this is something that folks aren't going to be able to see eye to eye on.

I'm coming from the perspective of the consumer. Because I'm a slightly more savvy gamer than average, I understand that I'm purchasing a license when I get a game, not content that I "own."

I don't care when additional content is made. It can be before the final game code goes to pressing, it can be months after the fact, it can be years after the fact. What I can say, is that if it is on the disc, then I want to be able to unlock it without paying for it.

Call it a perception of value, or whatever. But I would rather download additional purchased content, than "unlock" it on a disc that I bought from a store. Otherwise it feels like you're holding back stuff, purely for the sake of greed.

Now, that could be exactly what's happening with downloadable extras. The developer could have extra levels, characters, modes, what have you, all ready to go months before the time of pressing, but are waiting a month or two, to have added goodies that I can download for a price. But I don't know that. I just see that there's cool stuff to download, that isn't a 100k key.

I'm sure there's others that disagree, and I guess I can see the logistics of having extras already on the disc. Personally it makes me irritated, and feel like I'm being cheated out of content that I should already be able to have access to by playing the game, not paying more money beyond the initial cost.

 

[a Master Ninja]

some of this may be deceptive.

For example, for SC4, DLC characters or clothes absolutely need to have their assets available to all users or else online players will be unable to see them. There have been quite a few title updates for Soul Calibur 4 along the way, these updates may or may not have contained the assets for the DLC.


This should go for any game with an online component which would involve other users needing to render the content.

The SCIV title updates do not contain the DLC, like all 360 updates they are just a small executable that tweak balance and features. Hackers have found all the content released so far on the disc already.

Is it really a big deal to require everyone to download the DLC in order to play online together? You have a free version and a paid version, but it's essentially the same file, just people who pay get access all the DLC in the file. Crackdown and AC6 do this, and they even have some freebies content in there for people doing the free download.