For exclusive DLC being effective it helps that the original game isn't boring and uninspiring as hell. I didn't even finished my copy of GTA IV.
DLC: The Next Generation Third Party Exclusives ? (TR:U, Mirror's Edge, GTAIV etc)
- Thread starter Blade47167
- Start date
There was complaining, don't kid yourself. Also, this exclusive DLC isn't because of the 360's market supremacy, if you're trying to draw that parallel with the PS2. Indeed, maybe if the PS3 owned the market like the PS2 did, MS would be unable to afford exclusive DLC, but that's a hell of a lot of PS3s to sell.
I don't see how exclusive DLC "screws" anyone. We've got from exclusive games to exclusive DLC ... Call me crazy, but is the latter not better than the former? People acted like Microsoft bribed Rockstar to release exclusive DLC for GTA4 on the 360. It's not a bribe, it's business. You pay companies for services. If you give them money, they'll do things for you. That's how business works. There's nothing shady about it.
Its more like Sony is screwing PS3 owners over. There is a bunch of exclusive DLC content for the 360 because MS makes an emphasis to invest in that area. MS pays to give its 360 users access to exclusive content, Sony doesn't for the most part. So don't blame third party devs for the lack of exclusive DLC on the PS3, blame Sony.
I don't see a problem. If the content on the disc is the same as in past games in the series or genre (if its a new game) and then they release dlc there is not a problem. I can understand being upset when they release content on the disc that is less than previous games and the dlc only brings it up to the past games in terms of content .
It's MS doing more in DLC rather than Sony screwing its customers. DLC is extra afterall. Otherwise, we have to say MS and Sony are screwing their customers for other games they did not pay for exclusive DLC.
MS has a very good reason to push for it because people are paying for online gaming, and they want to maintain their current revenue share of games. Sony focused on first parties and only pay for exclusive DLCs that they think are unique enough (only one example: Mirror Edge). They are just different strategies to grow their user base (Exclusives first party full games vs exclusive DLCs)
Me too. I think the strategies stem from different beliefs and philosophies. I remember Sony commenting that most/many people don't or can't finish their games. From their point of view (value-driven perspective), they may prefer to spend the money on real titles to grow their IP. MS obviously believes that additional DLC will increase their base sales (sales-driven perspective).
When the 2 platforms mature, I expect their 3rd party dev strategies to converge.
For now, the question is whether PS3 owners will delay TRU purchase and buy something else instead. There are too many games this fall. It is very easy to find an arbitrary reason to delay purchase. Besides, if the game is great enough, there will be follow up DLCs naturally.
DLC is wrong when it results in stripping content from the "original" game. I don't say this is the case here, but to be honest the first time I heard that DLC content would come a month after the release of Tomb Raider the first thing that came in my mind was that they crippled the main game to be able to release DLC later.
It wouldn't be the first time, their are even cases where the "DLC" content was distributed on the disc of the game itself.
That it is "just business" I can believe, but it doesn't take the psychological effect away that you get less for your money.
It wouldn't be the first time, their are even cases where the "DLC" content was distributed on the disc of the game itself.
That it is "just business" I can believe, but it doesn't take the psychological effect away that you get less for your money.
So you honestly think that the fact that their is DLC availabe (exclusively) for the 360 has everything to do with the 360 market "supremacy" (I must live in a parallel Europe then ) ?
I don't think that's their reason for it. The can charge for online for one reason and one reason only, because their online support is much better. People are always willing to pay for a better service.
They are paying for exclusive dlc because it's far far cheaper to fork over some cash to get exclusive downloadable content rights than it is to fund studios to make exclusive games. For the latter, the risk is huge. You spend all that money, and what if the game is a bomb? With dlc, all they have to do is ensure that they have the better version for games that are predicted to sell well, and they win. This shifts the cost and risk totally away from them, they leave it up to the individual studios to make successful games and ip's, and when the time comes MS just forks over a bit of cash for exclusive dlc rights, hence giving them the better version. Simple as that. It's the new frontier to compete on, MS has jumped ahead on it. You will see this more and more as platform exclusive games go the way of the dodo.
Recent examples, GTA4, Fallout 3, Tomb Raider, Mirrors Edge. The first three are all well established brands, well known, popular. Historically good games, good sellers. It's a safe bet that their sequels will all sell very well. Totally worth spending some coin to land the better version. Mirrors Edge is new, unproven. Will it sell well? Will it be a good game? Who knows. Exclusive dlc rights not as important. However....if Mirrors edge sells millions of copies, then guess which company will be at the dlc barganing table for Mirrors Edge 2.
Note....you still need an exclusive game or two, but MS already has Halo and Gears, both of which are great hype machines. And it's worth if for them to spend money to break console exclusivity, like spending money to make sure a game doesn't only come out on PS3. But you don't need to fund dozens of studios to crank out exclusive games. Not worth it.
Last edited by a moderator:
They will become closer and closer in quality unless MS brings in the content angle to differentiate further. While many will pay for XBL, it will still face competition from a free service like PSN (i.e., People will still consider these factors when buying consoles or rationalizing their renewal).
First parties will remain exclusive. It is one of Sony's key strategies. As for your comments on DLC, they are correct but it doesn't disprove what I said.
I beg to differ. Halo and Gears target the same audience. They are adequate to address the core gamers. They are inadequate for mass market (assuming they are interested to take on Wii and late stage PS3 titles). The first party games are needed to define the console experiences and also attack less developed segments. Sometimes you can count on third parties too, but not all the time.
At the end of the day, they will use a mix of both to varying degree.
You're missing the big picture! Addressing an audience's needs is but a small part of the equation. Halo and Gears are important because of the media frenzy they create. They get newspaper coverage, magazine coverage, internet coverage, tv coverage, they are everywhere. All that free advertising generates brand awareness, namely towards the 360 product. In the grand scheme of things, both of those games cater to a tiny fraction of the potential audience out there, but that's irrelevant. The amount of free attention they bring to the 360 brand is the big picture. So for those two, exclusivity is totally worth the cost.
The obvious PS3 equivalent is Metal Gear 4. That also is a game that caters to a tiny audience, relative to the potential population of gamers out there. But the phenoma that surrounds it brings piles of attention to the Playstation brand. That game as well is worth Sony spending piles of cash to keep it exclusive.
The amount of games with that kind of power though are few.
Sure. All those media hype was overshadowed by Wii sales right ?
Same answer as above. These are all hardcore titles for core gamers.
I didn't say exclusives are not worth it (That's my point in the first place). I only commented that exclusive games have their place in the grand scheme of things. In any case, when the platform user base are big enough, they should be sufficient to support even third party exclusives. Don't count them out just yet.
Wii has nothing to do with it. Nintendo had the most brilliant strategy of all, targeting women. I posted about that elsewhere though so I'm not gonna rehash that.
I don't think that's the case anymore. When you have the average console owner buying 7+ games a year, two or three yearly exclusives starts to be come less relevant (except for Halo and Metal Gear caliber brands), and the multi-platform games have more weight. For example, Sony has Resistance and Killzone as exclusives. But what if a large portion of gamers don't care about those games? Poof, all the exclusivity money spent for nothing. Multi-platform titles make a big difference now, add some dlc and presto, you have the best version.
Why not ? They all have their own audience to target. As a side note, Wii is targeting the mass market, not just women. The point was that sometimes first party exclusives may be needed to target unconventional segments. DLCs have their places but they are also constrainted by the market of the base game, as well as the conversion ratio. Not everyone who bought the base game will buy the DLC.
Too early to tell. When the market is large enough, it can support different business models. Even right now, Insomniac can roll out one game per year (Yes. they staggered the releases). People will continue to innovate and differentiate based on their strengths.
Wii hits multiple audiences, including casual players, two console owners, and those fond of Nintendo franchises. But it was targeted primarily at women. That's my feeling anyways. I would not be at all surprised if during design, Nintendo used females more than males to focus test it. A large chunk of males will buy it regardless, because they want the Zeldas and Metroids. Casuals and females, for right or wrong, are largely considered to be one and the same at the moment, the other part of casuals being older people who never would consider a 360 or PS3. Yeah that's generalizing, but if you can pull in older gamers and women, then you have the lions share of casual players today. Point being, targeting women also nets you many of the casuals, and you'll still get some male players as well with classic franchises. So primarily targeting women makes total sense.
Regarding dlc, whether or not the user actually buys the dlc isn't the point. Dlc just has to be enough to sway someones choice to pick version X of a game over version Y. If they do ultimately buy the dlc, then bonus. If not, then it's still a win if it swayed someone to get the 360 version over the PS3 version. Win-win either way, irregardless if whether or not any dlc was purchased. It's like any optional upgrade, doesn't mean that people will buy it, but having it there extends the life of the game if needbe and hence ads perceived value.
Dominik D
Regular
Quality of _service_. Content is available to both Silver and Gold users.
It does. Exclusive _content_ has nothing to do with paid _service_.
In other word: either you don't know or you don't want to acknowledge the fact, that Live! Silver users have access to the DLC, so DLC has nothing to do with people paying for Xbox Live!.
Unless of course the DLC requires online gaming, or they may allow paying members first taste to the DLCs. They will naturally need to strike a balance to avoid non-paying members turning against them.
I think the models we see today are still evolving. The platform holders will adjust their strategies based on performances (e.g., GTA4 DLCs, R&C Quest For Booty, Siren, ... all represent different DLC experiments).
Dominik D
Regular
All the games we're talking about have very strong single player component. Where did you take this idea of online-focused exclusive DLC? TRU is single player game, Fallout used to be single player oriented (I hope it stays that way) and GTA was announced to be "story experience" so I really don't understand your point. Sure, there's some content Gold members get earlier (mostly if not exclusively demos, and even in this case only some of them). DLC which is not multiplayer maps is available to both Silver and Gold members at the same time. So again: there's no connection between paid service and paid content. Your argument about DLC strategy having something to do with paid service is flawed.
Ok, and?
That's because you have excluded them in your argument ("DLC which is not multiplayer maps is available to both Silver and Gold members at the same time").
GTA4 and TRU DLCs may very well be single player based. I am not sure you can guarantee that all these DLCs will always be SP. (It would become a restriction wouldn't it ? as in PS3 DLC can be MP and 360's cannot ?). I believe even for 360, mixing in some MP options is fair game.
All I am saying is as QoS converges, MS will also incorporate/bundle content as differentiator ("They will become closer and closer in quality unless MS brings in the content angle to differentiate further.")
Keep an open mind.
The current model "requires" the devs to release DLC close to the game "for best effects" (e.g., MS promised GTA4 DLCs fairly close to launch but delayed it to 2009). The same goes for TRU. They will have to see if the schedule (and hence, working model) is realistic/feasible since SMM indicated that no DLC is under development. If they started early, then they could have used those resources for the best SP gameplay in an increasingly crowded market. If they start now, they will be hard pressed for quality results especially if the DLC is substantial.
It's something the guys have to perfect. But at the same time, I think DLCs have other roles and opportunities.
Blade47167
Newcomer
http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/headlines3528.html
So apparently they not only paid for the exclusive content which is a continuation the main story... They also bought demo exclusitivity... WTF...
So apparently they not only paid for the exclusive content which is a continuation the main story... They also bought demo exclusitivity... WTF...
Similar threads
