Support NeoGAF

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

Content worked on after release should be paid for by consumers.

Content held back from release to be charged for as DLC is why everyone hates the practice.

Unfortunately there is an equal amount of both good and terrible DLC and season passes.

 

[KingBroly]

I can't believe Mario Kart 8 DLC ended after those 2 packs. They could've redone every Kart track from the previous games and I would've purchased all of it.

It took them a year to do those 2 DLC packs, though.

 

[Pompadour]

Season passes should be announced at least after 3-6 months after a game release, putting it right at pre order times, really gives away how much content was cut and decided for dlc .

That's not how game development works. DLC content has it's own budget and timeline separate from the main game. Development for DLC starts early because statistically consumers are more likely to buy DLC the closer to launch it's released.

That's why Season Passes exist at all, actually. The game industry runs on manufactured hype so people are more willing to thrown down money for multiple DLC packages in advance because if they waited they probably would have moved onto the next, hot game.

 

[Son Of Sparda]

Halo 5?

Don't own a X1, but kudos to devs if they are keeping everything free.

Anyway, my point was that it's okay for devs to charge for the extra work that they do to create these contents. You can't honestly tell me that you expect CDPR to work for months on Blood & Wine and Hearts of Stone expansions and then give them away for free.

 

[Harmen]

Season passes should come in free updates after the games release

No, because paid content allows for a bigger budget and thus more potential in the additional content. Now there are obviously many developers/publishers heavily abusing season passes/DLC, but that does not mean the concept in itself is wrong. Modern AAA games are damned expensive and often risky to make, and DLC can help to gain extra revenue and thus make a publisher more willing to put in additional funding. Even making DLC ahead of release is not necessarily bad (though this is often handled poorly), as it can also be included in the whole sales projection and development budget from the start, rather than simply cutting something out and selling it seperately.

 

[Megatron]

Mind boggling how so many people think this is insane. It's the way fucking PC games worked before Bethesda had the idea to monetize horse armor.
I get that coming from consoles the notion of a dev supporting and adding content to a game FREE might seem alien but it has been that way on PC since the internet was a thing.

Maybe this is true for a few games here and there, but I remember tons of expansion packs for pc games like the sims and ever quest and many other pc games, long before horse armor showed up.

 

[Megatron]

Content worked on after release should be paid for by consumers.

Content held back from release to be charged for as DLC is why everyone hates the practice.

Unfortunately there is an equal amount of both good and terrible DLC and season passes.

No, because budgeting and planning exist. In your preferred scenario, it leads to content coming out way after the game is released, when the users have moved on. It is also possible to come up with a plan for a game and give it to a team to work on and then sometime in that process assign a new team to develop content that wasnt in that original plan. Just because it was developed at the same time doesnt mean you should get everything they are making. Consider movie franchises that film parts one and two together. Do you believe your ticket should entitle you to both movies?

Now cases like metal gear solid phantom pain where part of the game is cut out and sold seperately do suck, but most situations of concurrent development are not like that.

 

[StMeph]

People complaining about DLC and Season Passes don't think to notice that game prices at retail haven't really changed much over 25+ years. The Xbox 360/Playstation 3 generation added $10, which is a 20% increase, but before that games were retailing at $50 for basically 20 years. And yet everything we know about game development suggests that costs everywhere (especially for major studio titles) are ballooning. How the hell do you think it's being paid for?

You can get all that post-launch content as free updates as soon as you're willing to pay $90+ at retail for a game and make that the new standard price.

 

[Pompadour]

People complaining about DLC and Season Passes don't think to notice that game prices at retail haven't really changed much over 25+ years. The Xbox 360/Playstation 3 generation added $10, which is a 20% increase, but before that games were retailing at $50 for basically 20 years. And yet everything we know about game development suggests that costs everywhere (especially for major studio titles) are ballooning. How the hell do you think it's being paid for?

You can get all that post-launch content as free updates as soon as you're willing to pay $90+ at retail for a game and make that the new standard price.

Actually, games were often much more expensive prior to the $50 CD-ROM days. I remember Street Fighter 2 being something like $80-90 dollars which would have been over $100 accounting for inflation.

DLC is the answer to the fact that gamers really don't want to pay more than $60 for a game. If DLC didn't exist, AAA gaming would be even more limited to just a few developers.

 

[blame space]

finally, someone figured this out!

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

Season passes should come in free updates after the games release

Overwatch.

 

[Str0ngStyle]

People complaining about DLC and Season Passes don't think to notice that game prices at retail haven't really changed much over 25+ years. The Xbox 360/Playstation 3 generation added $10, which is a 20% increase, but before that games were retailing at $50 for basically 20 years. And yet everything we know about game development suggests that costs everywhere (especially for major studio titles) are ballooning. How the hell do you think it's being paid for?

You can get all that post-launch content as free updates as soon as you're willing to pay $90+ at retail for a game and make that the new standard price.

While you make sense, I don't trust companies to hike the price up by that much and NOT release more paid dlc. MAYBE I would be down for this if we got some kind of legal guarantee that there would be no paid content released after the fact in exchange for bringing the price up that much.

 

[Shanlei91]

I believe Mario Kart 8's DLC was done wonderfully well.

2 DLC Packs with enough content to fill an extra half of the game for $12!

The only DLC I've ever purchased because I felt it was worth it.

I grew up unlocking costumes and characters, so being told I need to pay 1/5th of what I paid for the game to get a few costumes or a single character doesn't sit well with me. Mario Kart's DLC on the other hand comes off as "more than fair", it's a bargain. Basically an expansion pack.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

ITT I want everything for free cause reasons

 

[Pompadour]

While you make sense, I don't trust companies to hike the price up by that much and NOT release more paid dlc. MAYBE I would be down for this if we got some kind of legal guarantee that there would be no paid content released after the fact in exchange for bringing the price up that much.

This is a weird argument. If it's worth every penny who cares how much content there is? I think you saying "if we got some kind of legal guarantee that there would be no paid content released after the fact" lends credence to the joke that people against lots of DLC suffer from OCD.

The whole issue with DLC is this misguided fear that the content was "cut" from the main game to make an obscene profit. And there's no evidence of this practice occurring in 99% of games released (and I only say 99% because I've never personally read about an instance of this happening).

The main issues with DLC and Season Passes is that they are content designed to get people to purchase them during the period of time when consumers are most statistically likely to purchase DLC: at launch period. If consumers could show a little restraint (which is a virtue that seems sorely lacking in gaming enthusiasts) then this "problem" would go away.

 

[Facism]

Games didn't used to have post-release content...

The devs released the game, then they moved onto the next one. If the game had little content or glitches, that was the way the game would be.

The money funding development on these games a year after release could just as easily be spent producing a new game entirely, with no post-release content.

And hey, turns out all that post-release content is optional! Incredible!

I must have imagined all those unreal tournament bonus packs!!

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

No, because budgeting and planning exist. In your preferred scenario, it leads to content coming out way after the game is released, when the users have moved on. It is also possible to come up with a plan for a game and give it to a team to work on and then sometime in that process assign a new team to develop content that wasnt in that original plan. Just because it was developed at the same time doesnt mean you should get everything they are making. Consider movie franchises that film parts one and two together. Do you believe your ticket should entitle you to both movies?

Now cases like metal gear solid phantom pain where part of the game is cut out and sold seperately do suck, but most situations of concurrent development are not like that.

I'm referring solely to your last paragraph and, yes, it does happen too much.

 

[Sesha]

People complaining about DLC and Season Passes don't think to notice that game prices at retail haven't really changed much over 25+ years. The Xbox 360/Playstation 3 generation added $10, which is a 20% increase, but before that games were retailing at $50 for basically 20 years. And yet everything we know about game development suggests that costs everywhere (especially for major studio titles) are ballooning. How the hell do you think it's being paid for?

You can get all that post-launch content as free updates as soon as you're willing to pay $90+ at retail for a game and make that the new standard price.

We do now however have digital where developers get way more back per sale than from physical retail, and digital catalogs where the need for reprints are alleviated, and where titles continue to sell way beyond what they would 10-20 years ago, . On digital stores publishers can also set their own prices a lot of the time, whereas at retail the games are often forcibly priced down and discounted by retailers. And while prices stay at $60, in many other countries prices have risen. In my country prices are hovering between $80-90 on new games. Although the latter doesn't necessarily mean that publishers are making more, but that at least the cost of production is in local markets are increasing.

I don't mean that post-launch DLC/expansions/season passes/whatever should be free updates. A lot of them do add content that would never have been part of the vanilla release at the default accepted market price during any year or gen.

 

[Bishop89]

How is the developer going to get paid?

How do the the devs who release free content get paid....

 

[rackham]

Dishonored had pretty amazing dlc too. Two story packs with a new character that greatly expanded the universe.

 

[Orayn]

How do the the devs who release free content get paid....

How many games in the high budget console space release significant amounts of free content without receiving money from any other source?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

How do the the devs who release free content get paid....

Via micro-transaction hooks. Sometimes this includes gameplay-altering characters/items, other times it's purely cosmetic customizations. Either way, meaningful post-release support doesn't occur just to sell the base game.

 

[Jimrpg]

I generally don't buy DLC because I'm not interested in things like extra cars, costumes that don't really add much to the gameplay. It seems silly to buy more cars when the base game already comes with 50-100 cars. What I value are things like extra tracks and new areas to explore, but for developers, its just way easier for them to do things like costumes because people pay for shit like that.

The best DLC/season pass stuff so far has been -

1. Dark Souls/Bloodborne - brand new areas which are more expansion packs than DLC. Definitely worth the price.

2. Mario Kart 8 - probably the best priced DLC ever and giving people tracks, not cars.

3. The Witcher 3 - haven't played it yet, but Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine looks to add 30+ hours. That's more game than most other base games. I'm still waiting for a sale.

4. Driveclub - Even though this one is just tour packs for the season pass, I'm still keen on getting it because I really enjoyed the season mode in the original Driveclub. I need to catch it on sale one of these days.

The biggest offenders are -

1. Battlefield series - while the content is pretty good, lots of maps. it's priced the same as the base game. It's like paying twice the price.

2. Anything with a deluxe edition for $10-20 extra over the standard edition that sells you costumes, coins, skins, weapons and really trivial stuff that should already be included in the game. I guess I'm fine with them releasing that so people that want to pay more can, but I can't see myself buying it.

 

[DavidDesu]

It should either be significant new chunks of gameplay, such as in narrative driven games, for a reasonable price (£10-15, NOT virtually the full RRP of the original fucking game)...

OR

Small bite sized new pieces of content for small bite sized prices, like the special car packs in Rocket League. Very happy with my DeLorean for the £2-3 or whatever it was.

Also, I don't get these Ultimate Edition versions of games that cos like £15-£20 more and seem to feature literally a couple of new in game items, or just advance access to items you'll end up getting anyway. Madness.

 

[Unicorn]

If a dev supports a game with new content well after the game ships then I am all for throwing some money their way. Not everything should be free tbh.

When expansion packs were inclined to earn the 30$ is when we got worthwhile products. Having stuff that used to be Unlockable outfits or easter egg side missions are dirty ploys.

 

[QuantumSquid]

I would pay good money for a One Piece DLC that makes the head proportions less dumb looking.

 

[captainraincoat]

I disagree. If the devs are working on contents after the initial launch then they should be able to charge for them.

Problem is people got used to having half assed games released and then relying on dlc to fix it

Driveclub is not a good example...that game was shit on release and if you dont own the season pass its still shit...plus the game had something like 20 patches

Gtav is a good example on how to do dlc....its free and it adds to the game without costing any extra...ea and ubisoft have become reliant in that extra 30-50 dollars

 

[Nickle]

Game devs should feel gracious that I don't pirate their games, asking for more of my money is absolutely sickening. The video game industry has gone downhill ever since they tried to turn their craft into a business.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Game devs should feel gracious that I don't pirate their games, asking for more of my money is absolutely sickening. The video game industry has gone downhill ever since they tried to turn their craft into a business.

Since atari?

 

[The Lone Courier]

/thread

Yep, Yep

 

[Bishop89]

Game devs should feel gracious that I don't pirate their games, asking for more of my money is absolutely sickening. The video game industry has gone downhill ever since they tried to turn their craft into a business.

It has always been about business.

 

[ramparter]

The problem with 95% of season passes is the price.

.

At least we have plenty examples of games that did it right.

 

[Corpekata]

.

At least we have plenty examples of games that did it right.

I don't know about plenty. I'd say we're talking around...10 or so.

 

[Man God]

Via micro-transaction hooks. Sometimes this includes gameplay-altering characters/items, other times it's purely cosmetic customizations. Either way, meaningful post-release support doesn't occur just to sell the base game.

It happens occasionally. Splatoon for example.

 

[Son Of Sparda]

Via micro-transaction hooks. Sometimes this includes gameplay-altering characters/items, other times it's purely cosmetic customizations. Either way, meaningful post-release support doesn't occur just to sell the base game.

That could go wrong though. And in a very bad way.

 

[shintoki]

So basically they gave you a bunch of costumes that would have been in the game normally with some missions cut out too?

The reason's the Witcher 3's "Season Pass" works is, that it isn't a season pass. It's a full on expansion pack.

2nd, I don't get the complaints on the Season passes for Battlefield. Road to Rome was 40$ with 6 new maps, 2 new weapons, and 8 vehicles. Secret Weapons of WWII was the same, but much better on content. BF2 and 2142 both had it too. But also with some of the first dips into DLC with their booster packs(10$? Right?).

Basically, all that's happened with EA has been their expansions chopped up into smaller, but more pieces.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Season passes should come in free updates after the games release

Yep. Apparently, it's not enough knowing that already people spent $60 for their game.

 

[Son Of Sparda]

So basically they gave you a bunch of costumes that would have been in the game normally with some missions cut out too?

The reason's the Witcher 3's "Season Pass" works is, that it isn't a season pass. It's a full on expansion pack.

Are you one the devs from Omega Force? Do you work at Koei Tecmo? If you are not, then I don't know how you can say that with such certainty.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

How is the developer going to get paid?

I do not work in the game industry, so I am not the authority on this, but isn't that what the $60 games are for? I don't mind some DLC and even season passes to elongate the life of the game for more profit/revenue, but it's does tend to be abused by many developers consistently and things are getting worst. I am not speaking for all companies, but leaving content out purposely that would generally be included in the game in order to sell to you later as DLC is pretty deplorable imo.

 

[Megatron]

I'm referring solely to your last paragraph and, yes, it does happen too much.

What examples do you have? "It happens too much" is vague. You could say one is too many. I really can't think of many examples. One of the assassins creed games did it, I think. 2 maybe? Or brotherhood? It has missing memory sequences and you can buy them via dlc.

 

[Syriel]

Well it used to be that way.

Not really.

Extra content used to be called "Expansion Packs" and it was pretty much always pay.

I do not work in the game industry, so I am not the authority on this, but isn't that what the $60 games are for? I don't mind some DLC and even season passes to elongate the life of the game for more profit/revenue, but it's does tend to be abused by many developers consistently and things are getting worst. I am not speaking for all companies, but leaving content out purposely that would generally be included in the game in order to sell to you later as DLC is pretty deplorable imo.

You mean the cheapest AAA MSRP that games have ever been when you consider inflation/spending power?