DLC pricing (renamed)

[RenegadeRocks]

I think a little misunderstandin here. I am not saying games are getting short due to DLC.
I clearly said this:

But the length and content in the games today is already decreasing due to the high quality that is expected

Games are bound to get shorter coz making one level takes the tme and money today in which 5 levels could be done on the ps2 or Xbox. I know games are getting shorter, that is why I say that the stuff that keeps coming later coz it can't be done in the usual time span should be entitled to all that bought the game. They wanted to have all that goodness, thats the damn reason thay bought the game. If I decide to buy Residnert Evil 5 today then obviously I am buying it coz I love it and want all that is being made for this title. I might or might not play the MP, but I am paying those $70 for RE5, not only co-op.

Don't all games that have MP, sell it in the game, not separately. Its okay that you are releasing it later coz it couldn't be done in the time constraints earlier, but when it does come, i should be entitled to it.

I know the real world logic revolves around money, but so does the consumer logic, it revolves around his money ! I am just saying that standard stuff like extra maps , skins and modes should be free for all. If you do something that is actually extra like "The lost and the Damned", thats a whole new story , campaign with plenty of hours of play, then its okay to charge, but not for something that builds -off the same game that I have purchased.

I think Lost and the Damned is the way DLC should be done if done. Its like HL2:Ep 1 or 2. Lost and Damned has a lot of play hours and might be the only DLC justifying the hefty price tag.

 

[DrJay24]

I like free DLC, it sell more copies and gets people back into the game to stir interest in sequels. Army or Two had a substantial (1.5-2.0 hour) free DLC which extended the story. UT3 had the Titan pack. Even better 100s of great LBP levels created by users for free!

Most of the pay stuff is a scam. They withhold content for a few weeks and then sell it to us on top of the $60. Save the money for full game, even $10 XBL or PSN ones.

One of the few DLC things I have paid for that I really appreciated was the MGS LBP pack. You can tell they put work into it and the $5.99 was a good price.

 

[Xmas]

Games are bound to get shorter coz making one level takes the tme and money today in which 5 levels could be done on the ps2 or Xbox. I know games are getting shorter, that is why I say that the stuff that keeps coming later coz it can't be done in the usual time span should be entitled to all that bought the game. They wanted to have all that goodness, thats the damn reason thay bought the game. If I decide to buy Residnert Evil 5 today then obviously I am buying it coz I love it and want all that is being made for this title. I might or might not play the MP, but I am paying those $70 for RE5, not only co-op.

Don't all games that have MP, sell it in the game, not separately. Its okay that you are releasing it later coz it couldn't be done in the time constraints earlier, but when it does come, i should be entitled to it.

You get what's in the box. You can check countless reviews for any game to find out what it offers, and when you pay for it that's what you buy, and that's what you get (apart from bugfixes which count as support). If you expect more for that price, don't buy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Indeed. Developers adding features at a cost is nothing more than developers expecting to get paid for creating new stuff. Anything created after the game is released is extra work that won't see renumeration from (direct) game sales. A developers has to choose whether to create multiplayer in the beginning, do the extra work, and expect an increase in sales from it, or to leave the multiplayer aspect until after the game has shipped, selling less copies, but then recovering costs from the addon as DLC.

Personally I don't understand the mentality that expects people to work for nothing.

 

[DrJay24]

Personally I don't understand the mentality that expects people to work for nothing.

It depends on if it is work. Cutting out some levels and selling them as DLC is not extra work. Having a few people port or create some MP levels is not expensive. Sometimes it is nice for the dev/publisher to say "thank you" with some small stuff (See Burnout Paradise).

Something like Lost and the Damned is real work, it warrants real money. Most DLC is crap and sells for $10-$15. Something like RE5 selling a MP mode weeks after release smells like they removed the AC, a standard feature, from my car and sold it back to me.

 

[eezing]

Thread Starter​

Personal opinion of value is ultimately just that - a personal opinion. While you are free to share them, sweeping statements like 'Enough with raping cough cough... I mean pay for add-ons!' lack any real reason to exist other than riling up an emotional response.
In other words, they are prime candidates for deleted posts or locked threads.

Hey, Just trying to add a little flavor here.

Games are *really* expensive to make, and at the end of the day the publisher / developer aren't really getting a huge return on their investment (given the overheads involved with selling a boxed retail product).

You are right, they are very expensive to make. That being said, if the money was well spent, then the developer and publisher will see a huge return on their investment. Take COD 4 for example, it sold over 10 million copies; thats somewhere around $500 million in revenue. Call of duty 4 has an estimated developing and marketing cost of $20 million. Huge return?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your argument. If a game is well thought out, well developed and well marketed (money well spent), it should be successful and therefore make a lot of $$$ (percentage wise).

So, are you saying Activision Blizzard charged you $10 for COD 4 DLC because they needed the money? If so, why did PC users who payed $10 less for the game, receive the DLC free?

Publishers charge you for DLC because it's too easy; there is infrastructure (XBOX Live, PSN) built for it. The infrastructure has one overall purpose, to make $$$.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[specwarGP2]

Selling RE5 deathmatch as DLC is ok because no one expects an RE game to have it anyway. Selling deathmatch as DLC for an FPS isn't because that's something that everyone expects should come in the box with the game.

As long as the DLC is "additional" content, I'm fine with it.

 

[DrJay24]

Selling RE5 deathmatch as DLC is ok because no one expects an RE game to have it anyway. Selling deathmatch as DLC for an FPS isn't because that's something that everyone expects should come in the box with the game.

As long as the DLC is "additional" content, I'm fine with it.

So who does and doesn't get a pass? Other TPS have MP, Gears manages co-op and vs modes (and now Horde). GTA has MP component, the other GTAs did not, so maybe they should charge us? Old franchises do not deserve a free pass, evolve or die.

 

[specwarGP2]

So who does and doesn't get a pass? Other TPS have MP, Gears manages co-op and vs modes (and now Horde). GTA has MP component, the other GTAs did not, so maybe they should charge us? Old franchises do not deserve a free pass, evolve or die.

Easy. All those features you mentioned were included free, in the box. So going forward there is a reasonable expectation from end users that those feautures will be free in future versions.

Particular genres are expected to have certain features included, in the box. Shooters are expected to have a robust multiplayer experience with all sorts of different modes: deathmatch, coop, etc..

A game like GTA, I think the developers could have sold the multiplayer as DLC just like RE5, since to me it doesn't have the expectation of being a multiplayer game, and in reality, the game can easily stand on its own without it (just like RE5).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You are right, they are very expensive to make. That being said, if the money was well spent, then the developer and publisher will see a huge return on their investment. Take COD 4 for example, it sold over 10 million copies; thats somewhere around $500 million in revenue. Call of duty 4 has an estimated developing and marketing cost of $20 million. Huge return?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your argument. If a game is well thought out, well developed and well marketed (money well spent), it should be successful and therefore make a lot of $$$ (percentage wise).

Sure and lets forget about boxing, duplication, any manuals that may need to be printed, and oh those e-tailers/retailers don't need to make a profit selling your game either.

Likewise, there's no residual royalties being paid to any possible IP holders. And let's use a breakout game to make a sweeping generalization about the pricing for all DLC.

Let's also forget that any outstanding profit from a breakout game might be used to fund production for a game that might not otherwise get funding since it's based on some premise that top brass doesn't think has mass market appeal.

No no, all that profit should go to providing free content rather than being used to take a chance on producing another game (or games) that noone has a clue whether it'll flop or sell well.

So, are you saying Activision Blizzard charged you $10 for COD 4 DLC because they needed the money? If so, why did PC users who payed $10 less for the game, receive the DLC free?

Lets see, PC games don't have to pay a fee to either Sony or MS to make and release a game for those systems.

Let's see, Sony also charges the publisher for anyone that downloads their DLC. In addition to that both Sony and MS take a cut of any money made through selling a DLC.

While on the PC front, there's plenty of ad supported companies that are more than willing to distribute files/patches for free.

And businesses, especially game businesses ALWAYS need the money. At least if they want to avoid becoming the next Black Isle Studio or any other studio that has made great games but gone out of business. Because all it takes is one or two well funded games flopping to suddenly see a company in the red if they aren't making "bucketloads of cash" on another game or games.

Regards,
SB

 

[ninzel]

As I've said in another post I like the idea of buying games via digital distribution in parts so you can buy just the part that appeals to you,but I would hope that it comes with a lowered price for the individual parts.
The RE Vs mode is cheap by itself at five dollars,but when you combine it with the full game it seems a little expensive for my liking.
Can you buy and play just the VS mode without the need to buy the retail game?

 

[DrJay24]

Can you buy and play just the VS mode without the need to buy the retail game?

You can do that with MGO (in Asia at least), but it is included in MGS4.

 

[ninzel]

You can do that with MGO (in Asia at least), but it is included in MGS4.

But not for RE5 ?

 

[eezing]

Sure and lets forget about boxing, duplication, any manuals that may need to be printed, and oh those e-tailers/retailers don't need to make a profit selling your game either.

Likewise, there's no residual royalties being paid to any possible IP holders. And let's use a breakout game to make a sweeping generalization about the pricing for all DLC.

Let's also forget that any outstanding profit from a breakout game might be used to fund production for a game that might not otherwise get funding since it's based on some premise that top brass doesn't think has mass market appeal.

No no, all that profit should go to providing free content rather than being used to take a chance on producing another game (or games) that noone has a clue whether it'll flop or sell well.
SB

I agree with everything you've stated here. That being said, what would you say the economic profit (all said and done, money in the bank) not including future investments (not a time traveler), of COD 4 is?

Also, please stop referring to the thought that I think DLC should be free. It's not free, you already paid 70 bucks for it. This is really not a difficult concept. Free is getting something without giving anything in return.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Just to add fuel to the fire, the RE5 dlc may not be dlc really at all. The update is apparently only 1.8mb which could mean the mode is already on the disk and is just being unlocked along with a small patch. Of corse if they are using only assets already on the disk then it would make sense that the dlc is small, but 1.8mb seems a lil too small to me!

 

[ShadowRunner]

Also, please stop referring to the thought that I think DLC should be free. It's not free, you already paid 70 bucks for it. This is really not a difficult concept. Free is getting something without giving anything in return.

You haven't paid for it, you have paid for exactly what the publisher has decided to include. They don't owe you anything if you bought their game knowing full well what you are getting for what you paid.

I think decisions on what to make DLC is pretty self moderating in a way. If a feature is significant and is likely to sell more copies of the full retail game, and thus make the devs more money, it will be left in. If it is relatively insignificant and isnt likely to negatively impact the sales of the retail copy, potentially making money if sold seperately, then it is fair game for DLC.

 

[specwarGP2]

Just to add fuel to the fire, the RE5 dlc may not be dlc really at all. The update is apparently only 1.8mb which could mean the mode is already on the disk and is just being unlocked along with a small patch. Of corse if they are using only assets already on the disk then it would make sense that the dlc is small, but 1.8mb seems a lil too small to me!

Its just a patch that lets you play deathmatch and team deathmatch.

 

[Xmas]

It depends on if it is work. Cutting out some levels and selling them as DLC is not extra work. Having a few people port or create some MP levels is not expensive.

The concept of "cutting out" requires a whole package to cut out from. But if the developer never promised you this whole package of the total content made for a game for a single price, that simply doesn't exist.

Sometimes it is nice for the dev/publisher to say "thank you" with some small stuff (See Burnout Paradise).

True, and sometimes it can be a good business decision to offer free DLC. But it's not a "thank you" any more if it's taken for granted.

Something like RE5 selling a MP mode weeks after release smells like they removed the AC, a standard feature, from my car and sold it back to me.

In many countries an AC is not a standard feature of the average car, though. And you know what you buy, you know what you pay.

 

[eezing]

You haven't paid for it, you have paid for exactly what the publisher has decided to include. They don't owe you anything if you bought their game knowing full well what you are getting for what you paid.

Thus the reason I started this thread in the first place. This needs to change!

 

[DrJay24]

Capcom caught more than a little flak for charging extra for Resident Evil 5's VS mode. Their excuse? That it was "beyond the initial scope of Resident Evil 5".

Seems Capcom may have a strange way of defining what was in the "initial scope" because, as anyone who has downloaded the add-on will have found, the DLC weighs in at a massive 1.8MB. Leading some to suggest that, well, you're not really downloading VS mode at all. You're just downloading a key and some extra code that unlocks content that was already on the disc. The disc you already paid for.

http://kotaku.com/5202917/rumor-resident-evil-5s-versus-mode-was-yes-on-the-disc-all-along

Just a rumor, but it is interesting.