DLC pricing (renamed)

[tha_con]

So is complaining about people complaining pointless too? These are message boards, they exist for people to complain and express opinions.

Touche! (how the hell do you put an accent mark over the "e" anyway?).

My point is, this seems like another one of those threads where we all complain about something we can't change, and we're not subject to do.

I guess what I'm saying is business is business, companies have to make money, and they want to grow. We often get in the habit of only thinking like consumers, which is fine, but it's not "reality". We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking a business should make "just enough money" to run, nor should we always expect something for free. Nothing is ever free.

In fact, if any DLC has been "free" this generation, it's not because the developer loves you, or is "great". The reality is, it's free so you don't trade the game in. Fewer copies used on shelves means more money for them from new sales. Free DLC is just a means to help slow down the second hand market.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Last generation, you would pay $49.99 for a game. a year or two later, you would pay $49.99 for the sequel and the "new additions".

This generation, we can pay $59.99 for a game, and then 6 months later, enjoy more content and extended play (and new features) for another $9.99.

If I can pay an extra $10 to enjoy new content, new features, etc, instead of paying $50 for a sequel, then that is awesome.

Terrible argument!!!The DLC content is not comparable to the content you would get from a sequel at all. A sequel is a new game, it gives you new experienced both in sp and mp. DLC just adds something on top of a game. Not comparable at all.

 

[NRP]

I want developers to survive. If DLC makes that more likely, then I don't have a problem with it. So far, as far as I know, no game worth buying has been seriously gimped so that DLC is necessary for a complete experience. Moreover, DLC so far has not been prohibitively expensive either.

 

[tha_con]

Terrible argument!!!The DLC content is not comparable to the content you would get from a sequel at all. A sequel is a new game, it gives you new experienced both in sp and mp. DLC just adds something on top of a game. Not comparable at all.

Really?

Lost and the Damned
Shivering Isles
Knights of the Nine
Fallout 3 Expansions
Prince of Persia Epilogue
L4D Survival Pack
LBP MGS Level Pack (paintinator)

There is TONS of DLC out there that offered a new experience in both SP and MP. Maybe you're not looking in the right places?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Touche! (how the hell do you put an accent mark over the "e" anyway?).

My point is, this seems like another one of those threads where we all complain about something we can't change, and we're not subject to do.

Yeah, but sometimes it's just good to talk. In fact I dare say everything we talk about here changes nothing in the world! Can you give me an example where a complaint on B3D causes changes for the better that solve the issue?

Talk doesn't always need to lead to action. In fact given the sheer amount of talking people do, most talk is intrinsically idle banter that leads to nothing. It's a time-filler. We could meditate instead. Or go play games instead of talking about them.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

You paid $60 bucks for the game. Not the additional content. Most (emphasis on most) of the time, you get a complete product for $60. 5 years ago, you would be completely content with that. Anything that didn't make the cut would get implemented in a "sequel" (if the game was successful enough to justify one).

A sequel is not the same as DLC. A sequel is a full game, a DLC is 99% of the time just a few new maps etc. Sequels and DLCs are completely different things.

You probably spend more on cheese burgers and soda each day.

Completely ridiculous comment as cheese burgers and soda are not substitute goods for video gaming software.

Honestly, everything about DLC is completely voluntary. I see no sense in complaining about it.

There is reason to complain about it. The DLC pricing scheme does not represent the costs at all. Consumers are being screwed big time.

If you buy a AAA game, you pay 60 bucks for a game that costed 20 million (or even more) to develop.

If you pay 10 bucks for a DLC for the same game, usually you pay 10 bucks for something that costs a couple hundred thusand to create.

Even worse if what you buy is costumes or a house in home etc.

Unfortunately, the marked situation is what allows for this crazy pricing scheme to happen. If we would have had perfect markets, the price for a hourse armor DLC would be next to zero

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Really?

Lost and the Damned
Shivering Isles
Knights of the Nine
Fallout 3 Expansions
Prince of Persia Epilogue
L4D Survival Pack
LBP MGS Level Pack (paintinator)

There is TONS of DLC out there that offered a new experience in both SP and MP. Maybe you're not looking in the right places?

Omfg. Do you really have that hard of a time to read english? Read my post again.

No where in my post did i say anything about DLCs not offering new experiences in both SP and Mp-

What i said was that a sequel and DLC are not comparable at all. DLCs just adds something on top of an alleready existing game., a sequel is a brand new game based on the same story\whatever as the previous title in series.

Look at your DLC's listed. All of them just adds something on top of a game allready in place. How on earth can you compare this to sequels? These DLC's either add some insignificant gameplay mode\element, or adds a few new multiplayer maps, or adds a few hours of missions (to a game that has 100+ hours of missions to begin with).

 

[hoho]

If you buy a AAA game, you pay 60 bucks for a game that costed 20 million (or even more) to develop.

If you pay 10 bucks for a DLC for the same game, usually you pay 10 bucks for something that costs a couple hundred thusand to create.

What about comparing DLC with CPU/GPU production? It takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop first working silicone while mass producing them costs relatively little. Should a small improvement over the old CPU/GPU (Phenom vs Phenom 2) cost a lot less than the original?

 

[patsu]

My point is, this seems like another one of those threads where we all complain about something we can't change, and we're not subject to do.

User feedback are monitored. Things have changed before due to strong positive or negative responses on the net (e.g., PS3 Bioshock texture fix, MS DLCs that became free after some time, Batarang concept got canned, etc.).

However, the change may not be immediate. And naturally, not all requests are entertained.


In this case, I think Capcom will monitor both the actual sales and forum posts to decide their next move. Needless to say, they will treat their next DLC with more care.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

What about comparing DLC with CPU/GPU production? It takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop first working silicone while mass producing them costs relatively little. Should a small improvement over the old CPU/GPU (Phenom vs Phenom 2) cost a lot less than the original?

In a competitive marked, CPU\GPU production would be cheaper aswell.
If the costs of developing\creating\producing phenom 2 was alot less than with phenom 1, then yes, it should be cheaper.

This is what happends when you dont have enough competition. Nvidia vs AMD and AMD vs Intel is hardly a competitive marked, and thus they price their products accordingly (ogligopoly marked approach).

 

[hoho]

In a competitive marked, CPU\GPU production would be cheaper aswell.
If the costs of developing\creating\producing phenom 2 was alot less than with phenom 1, then yes, it should be cheaper.

I have an alternative theory:

The original product is not meant to be able to pay back the entire development cost, that is left for the deriverate products.

Nvidia vs AMD and AMD vs Intel is hardly a competitive marked, and thus they price their products accordingly (ogligopoly marked approach).

Right, that's the reason why AMD has lost billions over the past couple of years. They clearly price their products higher than their manufacturing cost and all the profit they should be making just evaporates!

 

[tha_con]

User feedback are monitored. Things have changed before due to strong positive or negative responses on the net (e.g., PS3 Bioshock texture fix, MS DLCs that became free after some time, Batarang concept got canned, etc.).

However, the change may not be immediate. And naturally, not all requests are entertained.


In this case, I think Capcom will monitor both the actual sales and forum posts to decide their next move. Needless to say, they will treat their next DLC with more care.

If VS mode makes Capcom millions of dollars, you can bet your buttons that their next DLC will be similar. They aren't in the business of pleasing the vocal minority. If they make a good deal of money on it, then I'd be willing to bet Dead Rising 2 will get a VS mode just like it for a similar price tag.

Oste - But Sequels are essentially DLC w/some more story.

God of War was like 6 hours, God of War 2 was about the same. The differences were story, and a few weapons / abilities.

Essentially, aside from the story, everything else was only minor improvements over the original.

I could do this for many games in sequence. DLC essentially is the upgrades w/out the story.

Each one of the expansions I listed added a good amount of gameplay and functionality to those games for minimal cost.

Either way, I'm done here, lol, it's obvious the DLC Police are out

You guy's can go back to being angry gamers, I'm so glad I'm not jaded.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Bottom line to all this discussion.

1. Businesses want to make money and need to make money.

2. Businesses try to make something people want and/or convince people it is something they want (LBP for example isn't exactly a game people wanted before it came out, but by making and marketing it, they convinced some people it was a game they wanted). Games for example. DLC for said games as another example.

3. Businesses cannot read anyone's minds and just because there's a lot of vocality in forums does not indicate whether that is the majority or minority. In other words, there's a LOT of risk and a LOT of money at risk everytime something is made.

4. Businesses are slowly coming to price points determined by the market/users/buyers of their games that they are comfortable with the level of income they are getting.

5. If noone buys any DLC then most DLC will no longer be made. Similar to how if a game or certain type of game (Space Flight Sims for example) then those games will longer be made. DLC is no different. It is entirely consumer driven.

So basically, it doesn't matter if someone doesn't like how something is done as long as enough people like it that companies find it profitable.

Compare for example PC games to X360 games. How much free content is produced for PC games versus paid DLC for X360 games? Not all that bloody much. And that's even considering that most PAID DLC for PC games have failed when attempted. Bioware with Never Winter Nights being a very successful exception to this.

Given the option of creating free content versus creating another game that could make them money, most companies choose to channel profits from a blockbuster game into making a new game.

X360/PS3 is changing the dynamics of this a bit. Now the choice is between Free content (no profit, just more money sunk into a game that has already been released), DLC (small profit for small time investment), and make a new game (potentially large profit [gamble] with high time investment).

DLC represents a relatively risk free way to make profit that can then be used to fund development of another game without as much risk of the company going bankrupt if it fails.

Imagine for example if Looking Glass could have sold DLC's for System Shock 2 or the Thief series for example. Mmmmmmm...

Or if Interplay/Black Isle Studios could have sold DLC for the Fallout Series, Interstate 76, etc.

Perhaps they might still be around taking chances on risky game ideas out of which a gem might be found. Instead of going out of business taking chances on risky game ideas hoping a gem might be found.

As it is, pretty much noone is making Space Sims now days, it's too risky. Same goes for turn based strategy games (although it's nice to see some small studios still putting out great games with limited graphics). Flight Sims also have a hard time getting funding. All of which are too risky to risk large developement dollars.

But yeah, it's much easier to just paint them as being too greedy and all that profit goes into someone's pockets rather than actually being used to develope games.

Someone earlier mentioned how much money Blizzard makes. You do also realize that all that profit also allows Blizzard to spend a considerable amount of time bugfixing and polishing their games? Rather than having to push it out the door because, oh no, there's no money left to finish it properly.

But hey, it's better to think they are just greedy bastards and pocket all that money with no benefit to the end user.

Regards,
SB

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I have an alternative theory:

The original product is not meant to be able to pay back the entire development cost, that is left for the deriverate products.

Alternative theory to what?

Im talking about marked efficiency and your talking about product development models. Im well aware of what your describing.
Are you saying that CPU's would NOT be cheaper if we had more competitors?

I see that we are kind of talking around eachother.

You want to talk about DLC as a derivative of the orginal product, the game, and that these games are build with a cost model like the one you described above, and thus my argument earlier in this topic is flawed. I partially agree.

Right, that's the reason why AMD has lost billions over the past couple of years. They clearly price their products higher than their manufacturing cost and all the profit they should be making just evaporates!

The fact that the marked is not competitive has nothing to do with AMD losing billions. You can still loose money in an uncompetitive marked.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Are you saying that CPU's would NOT be cheaper if we had more competitors?

It's kind of hard for CPUs to actually be cheaper considering AMD is selling theirs at razor thin margins and thus losing money by the bucketloads. But to do otherwise would be to lose even more money.

I think CPUs is a rather bad analogy for that. Even if there was more competition, it isn't exactly like AMD could cut their prices much more without suffering even greater losses.

Competition only helps the consumer in a few cases. If it pushes technology developement for example. Or if you have a company or limited number of companies working together to fix prices such that margins for all companies involved stay stratosphericly high.

Too much competition could also ultimately hurt the consumer in the long run. Think of it this way.

Competition pushes developement. Money is needed for developement. Prices need to rise to fund developement. Breakthrough happens. But prices need to rise to fun further developement.

So in one sense the consumer is getting a better product right away (a Mercedes S class for example) but the price is so high that only a limited number of people can afford it.

Eventually, however, that will trickle down to your average consumer (Airbags that were first available on Mercedes S class for example).

You could basically the same same about the current Intel I7 platform. Phenomenal performance driving by competition. But doesn't really benefit the average consumer right aways as it's still relatively expensive. After all Intel still needs to recoup R&D costs as well as fund future R&D. And while they make a small profit on their Q series, that profit isn't as much due to having to compete with AMD.

If they had to rely solely on low margin parts then R&D would in turn suffer as there wouldn't be enough funding for "quick" developement.

Everything has a cost. You want fast technology advancement? Then you need a LOT of cash. Which means high margins. Which means you really don't have a choice but to price things quite high to recoup and fund further R&D.

I just don't get how people in general somehow expect a free lunch or think that things are cheap to develope.

Heck, I have some friends in the medical imaging business. The business was doing quite well by competing on price and making affordable medical imaging equipment. However, now that the economic recession is here, the company may go out of business because they priced their equipment TOO low and thus may not have the cash to survive a prolonged recession. BTW - most of those friends are now without a job...

Regards,
SB

 

[ninzel]

You have to take each DLC on a case by case basis and not take a generalised stance on it.
Although I can see the potential for abuse.
Take for example Fallout3. I loved that game and played it through a few times but everytime the frustration came when your player hit the level 20 wall. Obvioulsy there has to be a limit but 20 seemed low for a game that offered so many missions.
Now I read an interview where the devs say they understand this might have been a little bit of a mistake and offered up the ability to level higher in one of their expansion packs to level 30. If I were to be cynical I might think they intentionally restricted the retail game to enitce players to buy the expansion.

 

[eezing]

My point is, this seems like another one of those threads where we all complain about something we can't change, and we're not subject to do.
.

You are wrong my friend... We the consumer really do control the market; they (devs/publishers) would have you think differently and in your case they've succeeded. All you have to do is... not buy DLC! It's really that simple. And don't tell me one person doesn't make a difference, that's the same thing as saying, one vote doesn't make a difference and therefore I don't need to vote (only ignorant morons say things like that). If you and all of your friends agree to no longer purchase DLC, then in reality you are making quite the difference.

Why do you think they don't charge PC Gamers? They don't charge PC Gamers because the won't pay for it.

I know what your thinking... If DLC we're to not exsist, then games in general may not have as much content. Let me ask you this: Are you willing to pay the same for less content? All you have to say is NO!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You are wrong my friend... We the consumer really do control the market; they (devs/publishers) would have you think differently and in your case they've succeeded. All you have to do is... not buy DLC! It's really that simple. And don't tell me one person doesn't make a difference, that's the same thing as saying, one vote doesn't make a difference and therefore I don't need to vote (only ignorant morons say things like that). If you and all of your friends agree to no longer purchase DLC, then in reality you are making quite the difference.

Why do you think they don't charge PC Gamers? They don't charge PC Gamers because the won't pay for it.

I know what your thinking... If DLC we're to not exsist, then games in general may not have as much content. Let me ask you this: Are you willing to pay the same for less content? All you have to say is NO!

This is all really a simple concept. Just turn that fanboy switch off and be your own person for crying out loud. Rid yourself of the idea that they are your friend. They are not doing you any favors. In the end, it is a simple business transaction: You give the money and in return they give you a game, end of story.

Or just turn the anti-DLC switch off.

It isn't going to change because most (obviously not all) DLC provides exactly what the people that buy them think they are worth.

Because the people that don't think they are worth it generally don't buy it.

Weird how a free market works...

Regards,
SB

 

[tha_con]

You are wrong my friend... We the consumer really do control the market; they (devs/publishers) would have you think differently and in your case they've succeeded. All you have to do is... not buy DLC! It's really that simple. And don't tell me one person doesn't make a difference, that's the same thing as saying, one vote doesn't make a difference and therefore I don't need to vote (only ignorant morons say things like that). If you and all of your friends agree to no longer purchase DLC, then in reality you are making quite the difference.

Why do you think they don't charge PC Gamers? They don't charge PC Gamers because the won't pay for it.

I know what your thinking... If DLC we're to not exsist, then games in general may not have as much content. Let me ask you this: Are you willing to pay the same for less content? All you have to say is NO!

So if Consumers control the market, why did both console prices and game prices RISE this generation, when the biggest sellers last generation were the lower priced games? The PS2 /XB /GCN all had increased sales as the systems got cheaper.

So did our infinite control of the market magically raise the prices of both games and consoles this generation? Or did that just happen by chance?

There is absolutely no proof to say if we had no DLC that all the DLC content this generation would have been "in the game".