BioWare - On Day 1 DLC

[JDR13]

Why? What difference does it make? The content they worked on took as many hours to produce whether it is on the disc or not. What's the difference?

You're joking... right?

 

[Brother None]

But, if you really, honestly, cannot see anything wrong with it then I don't think I have the words to explain it.

I never said I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't buy DLC exactly because I know it's a scam relative to full price game value, and its artificially inflated value props up the game industry when it shouldn't be propped up.

I'm saying there's no difference. And so far I'm still not getting a good explanation. The only operative word in any of these replies is "obvious"; the only thing bothering people is that it's more obvious, and thus annoys you.

What's the difference between 2K Marin spending 100 weeks working on their game, locking part of the content, and then selling it as DLC, or working 95 weeks, then working 5 weeks on DLC and selling it?
The assumption here is that the content on the disc always represents 100 weeks of work, so that locking off part of its content represents a full product with diminished value. The thinking is of some kind of mythical "finished product" that DLC represents added value to.
It doesn't work that way, games and DLCs are budgeted and designed with profit margins in mind that have nothing to do with the choice of whether you put in the 5 weeks of work before the disc is being printed or after.

Because that's the difference, before or after printing. So?
So what's the problem? That they're making it obvious they're ripping you off rather than hiding it? That's a bit weird to get upset at.

 

[Korplem]

You're right, I guess. I was thinking of it as dishonest to hide the DLC but it's actually very honest in the fact that they don't try to hide their intentions of scamming money.

I rarely buy DLC. The first DLC that I bought was the two for Mass Effect and immediately felt ripped off. That was just lousy material.

I also bought the two for GTA4. I think those were on the right track as far as DLC goes. They were each about $15 irc. And together I got an extra 20-25 hours of play. So, $30 for 20 hours sounds reasonable as far as a traditional expansion goes. Also, they had the same level of polish that the original GTA4 had so I didn't feel like it was their B-team throwing us scraps.

I'll never buy a multiplayer map pack, a weapon add-on, a new vehicle add-on or any of that other rubbish. If developers can release expansion level material then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Yeesh]

To me, DLC is just a heartbreak. By selling directly to the customers, the devs can cut out all the costs short of those for development and the actual purchase transaction, and they could capture 100% of the purchase price instead of splitting it up with whomever they have to when they sell a boxed game. So while they could be making good old full-sized expansions and selling them for $20 a pop and pocketing more per unit sold than they ever did in the olden days with traditional distribution, it's sad that they've instead just gone ahead and started charging money for the sort of things that used to be freebies for fun.

I'm just a big fan of massive expansions, and it seems like with DLC they should be more profitable to make than ever. But nooooo, why bother when you can sell 4 little nothings for $5 a piece.

But what are you gonna do? Nothing, that's what.

 

[Brother None]

By selling directly to the customers.

Eh? Most DLC sales go through Xbox Live, Playstation Network and the like, which I assure you is not free to use for developers to release on.

Also, what you're saying would be correct if there was an existing healthy profit margin on games. There isn't, which is why DLC exists in the first place, it's either that or raise the price of games (or lower production cost, but that doesn't seem to be an option).

I rarely buy DLC.

And voting with your wallet is all one can do. It doesn't really matter, though, there's too big an audience out there for DLC. Horse armour sold in the hundreds of thousands if I recall correctly, and no amount of critical purchasing can row against such an enormous stream of mindless consumerism.

 

[Francesco]

I may be a little "old school"... but I love full expansion packs and hate DLCs, which are nothing more than an attempt to sell a relatively small amount of content to an insanely, ridiculously high price. Just stay away from them the more you can... or things will only become worse.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Add-Ons and Expansion packs are sometimes very, very difficult to find again. They are sometimes far more rare than the original game itself.
Same will be with DLC, Im sure, only electronically.

 

[Malk]

I doubt that. Older EPs may be hard to find because there's a limited amount of CDs made which is not the case with DLCs.

 

[Benedict]

Also, what you're saying would be correct if there was an existing healthy profit margin on games. There isn't, which is why DLC exists in the first place, it's either that or raise the price of games (or lower production cost, but that doesn't seem to be an option).

Exactly, can't see what people's issues are . . . if they get the core game at a more competitive price because there's enough idiots out there willing to pay $5 for horse armour surely that's a good thing?

People also seem to be getting hugely paranoid about where DLC might possibly go. Personally i don't see it doing away with the need for expansions, once I've finished a single play through of a game then I'm basically done unless there's a big chunk of new content. I can't be the only one either, so I'd imagine there's plenty of demand to release proper expansions still (and if there were DLCs between the original game and the expansion I'd probably buy a DLC bundle when I got ready to replay the game).

And the worry about games being purposefully wrecked so as to force people to buy DLC . . . can't see that happening all that often. If a game is shit straight out of the box then consumer interest dies away long before any DLC could have a material impact. IMO if anything the shift of revenue streams away from the initial purchase of the core game and on to later purchases by people who enjoyed the core game is going to encourage developers to get the initial release more playable.

 

[DArtagnan]

Exactly, can't see what people's issues are . . . if they get the core game at a more competitive price because there's enough idiots out there willing to pay $5 for horse armour surely that's a good thing?

People also seem to be getting hugely paranoid about where DLC might possibly go. Personally i don't see it doing away with the need for expansions, once I've finished a single play through of a game then I'm basically done unless there's a big chunk of new content. I can't be the only one either, so I'd imagine there's plenty of demand to release proper expansions still (and if there were DLCs between the original game and the expansion I'd probably buy a DLC bundle when I got ready to replay the game).

And the worry about games being purposefully wrecked so as to force people to buy DLC . . . can't see that happening all that often. If a game is shit straight out of the box then consumer interest dies away long before any DLC could have a material impact. IMO if anything the shift of revenue streams away from the initial purchase of the core game and on to later purchases by people who enjoyed the core game is going to encourage developers to get the initial release more playable.

It's not about being paranoid, it's about understanding human nature.

In any case, it's a long time ago that I gave up on the AAA market in terms of catering to my tastes - so I don't really have a big problem with it. It's just par for the course.

But look at this thread in 5 years or so, and then think about how many full blown expansions you've had in that time. Something like Hordes of the Underdark - as has been mentiond - will be extremely rare at that point.

Let's see