The Great DLC/F2P debate.

[Deleted member 11852]

If you think Fallout 3 had a paltry amount of content compared to other games without buying the DLC, you don't play that many games. Same with Borderlands.

Fallout 3 kept me busy for a fair few weeks. It wasn't as lengthy as Oblivion but to scour the landscape and follow up all the quests would take a long while.

Unless you're only counting the main quest line?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

 

[Cyan]

DLCs are just a digital version of the PC's old "Expansion Packs". They appeared originally with the intent to extend a game without forcing people to wait another 2/3 years for the sequel.
Given the rising costs of AAA games, it made sense to release a Expansion Pack about 8 months to 1 year after the game's release, saving the cost and time of developing a new engine, interface, gameplay, controls, etc.

Then the publishers saw the Expansion Packs as a way to fight the second-hand market and make more money.
If these were only available through digital distribution and forced gamers to "attach" the expansion packs to a personal online account, they wouldn't be able to sell the expansion pack and they would also feel more reluctant to re-sell the original game. Hence, the DLC was born.

This "DLC" invention went so well that many publishers decided to attack the second-hand market directly by always attaching each game's copy to an online account.
(Later on, for the PC they even implemented constant online monitoring on single-player games to make sure all [strike]criminals[/strike] PC gamers were paying for their copies. Microsoft even tried to do that in a console.)


Then, after blatant attacks to gamers' intelligence and self-respect like horse armor and day-one DLCs, many publishers reached the brilliant conclusion that the most effective way to rip the money out of their customers would be to completely strip away the game itself and sell only horse armor day-one DLCs.
Of course, they could only do that if they gave the illusion that the gamers were being given the choice to pay, that they could even play the game without paying any money. Sure, trick them into that and make sure to give them the most frustrating gaming experience ever if they don't keep paying for those horse armor day-one DLCs.
Hence, F2P was born.


We will only have a market made of horse armor day-one DLCs if we pay for them and keep making these publishers rich.
Should Crytek continue to follow the F2P route, I'm hoping for them to burn so hard and so fast that it'll set an example to scare away other bean counters in charge of a dev studio with the idea of doing the same.

I hate most DLCs that don't feel like expansions anymore.

And I fear that with Destiny, for instance, we are going to have a lot of that. They will add new planets via DLC, more hassle, less space in your overcrowded HD...

What's to like of that?

 

[I.S.T.]

If you think Fallout 3 had a paltry amount of content compared to other games without buying the DLC, you don't play that many games. Same with Borderlands.

I think you didn't read my comment properly. I was talking about the terrible writing both FO3 and Borderlands 1 have in their main questlines, and how the DLCs were much better and thus were a major addition.

 

[Cjail]

Now I am lost.
What's this thread about now?
Is it a business discussion or we are evaluating of the quality of existing/past F2P and DLCs?

 

[-tkf-]

Despite laughs, that's not true. DLC was additional content, and has been by and large, at least on consoles. Day one DLC may annoy some people, especially when it's on disk but inaccessible, but DLC is about extending a game and making money beyond the initial purchase, which is only fair when DLC has a development cost.

I may be remembering things wrong, but in the "good" old days expansion packs were usually decided upon when the game had some sales under it's wings, i think there are plenty of examples of games without expansion packs.

But today the thought of a game without DLC in some fashion is unthinkable. It may not be chopped off from the game but it is clearly something that is planned along with the game, and i am sure that the development of the game, game story, textures etc etc are done with the DLC in mind. Basically there is resources being used on DLC that might have been used for the "main" game instead. To some degree the price for a full game is the main game plus the DLC.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Basically there is resources being used on DLC that might have been used for the "main" game instead. To some degree the price for a full game is the main game plus the DLC.

That's only from a certain, rather contorted view. Realistically devs can always spend more on the main game and give more away, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Keeping an eye on DLC during main development means being able to plan ahead and leave the door open to features that wouldn't be cost effective in the main game.

Putting it another way, every game suffers from feature creep. Prior to DLC, those ideas were cast aside as too costly to add in the main game. Now they can be put on the back burner and released as DLC, with the game engine even being designed to incorporate future features.

Ultimately, the value of the game is what you get for what you pay. If you get a good lot of game (measured in enjoyment), it's worth the money, regardless what DLC does or doesn't come after. One can't place a ban on developers even thinking about DLC and future monetisation during main game development!

 

[-tkf-]

That's only from a certain, rather contorted view. Realistically devs can always spend more on the main game and give more away, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Keeping an eye on DLC during main development means being able to plan ahead and leave the door open to features that wouldn't be cost effective in the main game.

Putting it another way, every game suffers from feature creep. Prior to DLC, those ideas were cast aside as too costly to add in the main game. Now they can be put on the back burner and released as DLC, with the game engine even being designed to incorporate future features.

Ultimately, the value of the game is what you get for what you pay. If you get a good lot of game (measured in enjoyment), it's worth the money, regardless what DLC does or doesn't come after. One can't place a ban on developers even thinking about DLC and future monetisation during main game development!

It's a realistic view, there is noway that I would believe that good stuff and or ideas isn't saved for dlc packs. And dlc is such a big part of a games business now it will take time and effort out of the game development.
It's meant to make the game more profitable and very often they reuse assets from the main game that already is paid off..

I think dlc is a natural development when game prices stay stagnant.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's a realistic view, there is noway that I would believe that good stuff and or ideas isn't saved for dlc packs.

Neither would I. But you can't put every good idea into the original game. It's not feasible. So during development there will be ideas that are cut from release. DLC means these can be put back. Yes, some will be ideas that prior to DLC may have made it into the game proper, but games are getting so big and costly now for what does release, the value is still much better.

10 years ago you'd pay $50 to get a game that cost $10 million to make. Now you spend $60 to get a game that cost $50 million to make. You'd getting way more for your money already. Asking even more content without paying for it is unfair and unrealistic. Moving that to DLC is better for everyone from a fair, sustainable POV.

And dlc is such a big part of a games business now it will take time and effort out of the game development.

How can you say that when games already cost stupid amounts of money to make? Let's say 10% of a $50 million AAA budget is spent on DLC (completely unrealistic because, as you say, they frequently recycle main-game assets). So you're getting $45 million of content for your $60 instead of $50 million, and have to spend $5 to get that extra content. It's still damned good value! Look at the zillions of hours one gets from gaming and compare that to the two hours one gets from a similarly priced movie rental, or rental of a squash court or a bowling lane, or a far more expensive meal out. Gaming is phenomenal value. DLC is part and parcel of making a living from that, and it does so in a way that adds value to the core game.

[quoteIt's meant to make the game more profitable and very often they reuse assets from the main game that already is paid off..[/quote]Or the cost is deferred onto the DLC saving a larger up-front cost.

I think dlc is a natural development when game prices stay stagnant.

Yes. But it's not done in a way that ultimately makes the main game a worse experience. Games are launched bigger and richer than ever before. They cost more to make. We get way more for our money than we used to already, and refuse to pay more up front. DLC extends the IP with value-add content in bite-sized chunks that makes the financing of such endeavours more palatable for the consumers.

 

[Cjail]

And dlc is such a big part of a games business now it will take time and effort out of the game development.

Some DLC are developed alongside the main game like Mess Effect 3 From Ashes that came out day one but some DLCs are developed after the game has been released, or went gold, like Dishonored DLC that come out several months after the main game.
Pirates of the Caribbean and MGS LBP DLC levels were no doubt developed after the game was complete since they arrived many many months later.
Now you suggest that DLC development takes resources away from the development of the main game (this is a very widespread idea among gamers anyway and it's often used to support the theory that DLC are a cancer) but it is also possible that the budget/staff for DLCs and the main game is/are not shared.
It very possible that some DLCs had/have their own budget and dedicated team that work on them.

 

[-tkf-]

DLC is not cancer, nothing is as serious as cancer about DLC.

I think that DLC can be very cool, but when i have to pay (i am not forced, free market and all the usual shit aside) for a weapon, for a hat, for something that is obviously added to milk money, sorry, raise the profit (then it´s of course ok, because PROFIT is what matters) then it´s not a good idea that wasn´t money for during the development, then it´s content that was ready and could just as well have been in the game, but hey lets get some moneyz..!

I am perfectly aware that it´s hard to balance, for example Titanfall added Maps via their DLC, i think it´s making the game less playable and devalues my investment. The players are thin and more DLC just thins the players even more. Instead of going the Burnout route and keep the game viable and fresh by adding the maps for free and let everyone benefit they decided to go for the quick cash. The game was clearly pressed for release and i would guess that had they had more time (money?) then the game would have shipped with more content, instead the players gets to pay for that.

 

[joker454]

I think that DLC can be very cool, but when i have to pay (i am not forced, free market and all the usual shit aside) for a weapon, for a hat, for something that is obviously added to milk money, sorry, raise the profit (then it´s of course ok, because PROFIT is what matters) then it´s not a good idea that wasn´t money for during the development, then it´s content that was ready and could just as well have been in the game, but hey lets get some moneyz..!

All games are reviewed on their stand alone merit, so if a game is hurt by having elements shifted to dlc then that will come out in reviews and peoples comments. You have a game like Saints Row 3 which had a ton of dlc, none of which I bought and yet I still loved the game. People could (and probably did) argue that the Hot Dog suit or Dracula Blood Sucking Skill should have been included in the stock game, but I completed the game and didn't miss them or need them at all. As long as the game can stand on it's own in stock form then I don't see the problem.

 

[Billy Idol]

I don't like it when MP games release with only a few maps/modes than add those, often within only weeks after release, as DLC.

Most recent games imo are guilty in this sense.

Maybe this is also the financial model behind a title like Destiny??

 

[Davros]

As I've often maintained the main problem with the gaming industry is that I do not control it.
One of my rules would be you cannot make dlc for your game unless it is complete and working properly.

 

[Billy Idol]

As I've often maintained the main problem with the gaming industry is that I do not control it. One of my rules would be you cannot make dlc for your game unless it is complete and working properly.

In this case, we would never ever seen released DLC for Battlefield.

In conclusion, I agree with you!!

 

[SlimJim]

somewhat relevant to the discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6BxbX-VHM
(everyone should watch this regardless. I bought all Oddword HD games to support the studio and the guy)

DLC and Digital Distribution go hand in hand.
I read somewhere that 2 Assasins Creed DLC expansions would give Ubisoft more money then a full game.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think you didn't read my comment properly. I was talking about the terrible writing both FO3 and Borderlands 1 have in their main questlines, and how the DLCs were much better and thus were a major addition.

Ummm, even games without any DLC can have horrible writing (Overlord 2? Overlord one of my favorite games, Overlord 2? Bleh), bad/incomplete endings (Star Wars: KOTOR 2 anyone?).

I loved Borderlands 1. I played the crap out of it (over 200 hours). I never bought or played any of its DLC. YMMV. I have yet to play a game where I thought the DLC was required. Or felt that my enjoyment of the game suffered because I didn't play the DLC.

Dragon Age Origins is one of my favorite RPGs ever. The only DLC I played was the one I got for pre-ordering it. Never played any of the additional DLC. Still one of my favorite games with one of the most fleshed out storylines of any game I've played. Dragon Age 2 on the other hand was just bad. And no amount of DLC was going to save it.

I may be remembering things wrong, but in the "good" old days expansion packs were usually decided upon when the game had some sales under it's wings, i think there are plenty of examples of games without expansion packs.

But today the thought of a game without DLC in some fashion is unthinkable. It may not be chopped off from the game but it is clearly something that is planned along with the game, and i am sure that the development of the game, game story, textures etc etc are done with the DLC in mind. Basically there is resources being used on DLC that might have been used for the "main" game instead. To some degree the price for a full game is the main game plus the DLC.

Ummmm, yes you are remembering things slightly wrong. In the very early days 80's to early 90's expansion packs wouldn't be considered until after the game had made a profit. But since the mid-90's and onwards, it was increasingly common for studios to start on the next expansion pack before the current game was finished as development studios started to employ more specialized people. It was either that or you lay off those people between games/expansions.

Blizzard, for example, alternated between starting the next game and starting an expansion before the current game was shipped when they only had one "team" developing a game. Not at the start but as the company started to grow (those specialized people that have to be put to work on something or they are laid off).

I'm sure back in those days all of the content that was cut from games would have eventually made it into a game if DLC had existed. But if you read developement diaries from some of the studios back then, you'll see a LOT of content that was cut from many games due to development cycles + publisher deadlines and that never had a chance to make it back into the game because DLC didn't exist.

Modern developers now have an option to add that cut content back in via DLC which developers "back in the old days" couldn't.

I'm sure there are developer's that plan out the DLC ahead of time now. But how is that worse than finding out midway through development that you have to cut content and that it will probably never make it back into the game? Like it was in the 80's, 90's and much of the 2000's?

Now you can plan out what you assume will make the main game. You also have content that could either be DLC or implemented if you have the time/funds.

Kickstarter has an interesting way of tackling some of this. Those goals they have for various levels of funding? If they get the funds it makes it into the game. If they don't it gets cut. If it gets cut, it still has a chance of making it in via future DLC.

This isn't to say that DLC is always good. But it isn't always bad. Some DLC is better than others. Just like not all games are bad and not all games are good. And some games are better than others. Just like not all F2P is bad and not all F2P is good. And some F2P are better than others. Blah blah blah.

Regards,
SB