BioWare - On Day 1 DLC

[Dhruin]

Ars Technica has a quote from BioWare's Casey Hudson on the legitimacy of Day 1 DLC (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/03/day-one-content-mass-effect-2s-casey-hudson-explains.ars):
We spoke with Casey Hudson, the project director for Mass Effect 2, at GDC. He's a man who knows a little bit about post-release content, and he explained it in a way that makes sense. The simple answer? It takes time to get discs into the hands of gamers.
"People may not be aware of it, and people may say if you have content available day one, why not put it onto disc? What goes out on disc, it takes about 12 weeks to debug and certify and get into the trucks to go out into stores," he explained. "That gives us a period of 8 to 12 weeks where we can make content, but we can't put it onto the disc because it's already out there. But we can insert it digitally, day one."
Thanks, Omega!
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=14630)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Others use these 8-12 weeks to test a game and "write" "day one patches".

I'm not saying they don't do it at Bioware/EA, but I just wanted to throw this in.

Maybe they have two distinct groups there at EA/Bioware, one for patching, one for "doing content", so then it would work, too.

[DArtagnan]

In my opinion, day 1 DLC isn't a problem.

The problem with DLC is that it's too easily used to exploit the impulsive purchase mindset, and the idea that a game isn't "complete" without all available DLC.

As with most things that I consider wrong with the market, the responsibility lies on both sides.

[TheMadGamer]

The problem with DLC is that it's too easily used to exploit the impulsive purchase mindset..."

I don't really see a problem with that. Every consumer can choose to control their impulse or let it control them.

...and the idea that a game isn't "complete" without all available DLC.

On this point I am in agreement with you. I am accutley, and specifically, watching carefully at DLC abuses in this particular area. I expect DLC to eventually become very abusive. I susupect there have already been games with DLC that had previously been part of the main game but were pulled out as DLC prior to the main game shipping. No way to prove it, but I'm sure it's happened.

I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.

[LuckyCarbon]

I'll admit it's largely a problem of perception.

So far these Day 1 DLCs have felt like they were intentionally left out. It doesn't help when some of the features were promised parts of the original game, cut out then re-released as day 1 dlc, that doesn't look good to the average user. ex: DAO: Stone Prisoner

A free bonus to encourage legit purchasers? The only problem with that excuse is the pirates have already cracked your DLC too. I think it's more likely to get you comfortable with the DLC process in hopes you're more willing to purchase their overpriced DLC later.

Charging for it? That's a no-no. People just spent $50, they don't want to get home and see the "rest of the game" is going to cost another $10.

[fatBastard()]

First off, the Stone Prisoner DLC for DA:O was not supposed to be a Day 1 DLC. It only became that when the PC release of the game was postponed due to having to wait for the console versions to be finished.

Secondly, imagine what could have happened if Obsidian had been able to use DLCs to reintegrate some, if not all, of the cut sections of KotOR 2 at a later point. I can understand the apprehension towards DLCs that is prevalent on a site like this where most things new are considered bad and terms like the "good ole days" are not used in joking :p, but there is also plenty of potential in DLCs and most importantly: you can choose not to get them.

[DArtagnan]

I don't really see a problem with that. Every consumer can choose to control their impulse or let it control them.

The problem is that many consumers don't control their impulses, which means it will be exploited. There's a difference between doing what's right, and doing what you can get away with.

That so many consumers fail to control their impulses - means they set a standard that will hurt everyone. Because if developers can get away with trivial content for a significant price - they will.

If we all agreed that maximising profit was the ultimate goal, then I see your point. But we don't all agree with that.

[BillSeurer]

Day 1 DLC is great! If you bought the game to get "X" you have no reason to complain if X is what you got *and* "Y" is being tossed in for free.

As for impulse buys, well, too bad. Just say No.

[DArtagnan]

As for impulse buys, well, too bad. Just say No.

It doesn't help saying no, if the majority says yes.

That means developers will focus on cheap trivial content, charging what they feel like to generate a good profit.

Which in turn means we won't get decent expansions like we're used to, as they're far too expensive compared to the alternative to create.

I know I can say no to crap content and I fully intend to, but that's not the point.

The point is that if enough people say yes, there will be much less quality content overall - so it wouldn't hurt thinking a bit more about this before greenlighting the concept and supporting it.

[Korplem]

What is really shitty is when publishers start doing something like Bioshock 2 (http://www.pcworld.com/article/191669/bioshock_2s_discfree_dlc_has_gamers_peeved.html) and thinking that it is ok...

[JDR13]

Yeah, I read about that a few days ago and was going to start a thread about it. Pretty detestable imo.

[JemyM]

Every consumer can choose to control their impulse or let it control them.

You refute your own comment here. If one is "controlled" one have no choice.

[wolfing]

of course this all falls apart when you consider Bioshock's 2 Day 1 DLC, which was already included in the disk and the 'DLC' was just like 500k to activate it.

[LuckyCarbon]

Secondly, imagine what could have happened if Obsidian had been able to use DLCs to reintegrate some, if not all, of the cut sections of KotOR 2 at a later point. I can understand the apprehension towards DLCs that is prevalent on a site like this where most things new are considered bad and terms like the "good ole days" are not used in joking :p, but there is also plenty of potential in DLCs and most importantly: you can choose not to get them.

KotOR2 would be an entirely different animal, and somewhere I hope DLC never goes. So much was cut from that game the plot barely made sense any more. The ending was atrocious. The only thing missing from KotOR2 that could even be considered DLC worthy might have been the robot planet which I believe was cut very early and not integral to the plot.

I'm not concerned if a company decides to release DLC, my concern is value for the dollar and that quality content isn't going to be produced anymore in favor of quick dollars DLC. I compare a huge expansion pack like Hordes of the Underdark for $20 compared to horse armor for $5 or Wardens Keep for $15 (?). Also, a lot of this stuff used to get patched in by the good companies, now, why patch it in if they can sell it for $5.

Imagine if TF2 sold every character achievement pack and the alternate weapons for $5 per character class. Sounds horrible right?

[Brother None]

What is really shitty is when publishers start doing something like Bioshock 2 (http://www.pcworld.com/article/191669/bioshock_2s_discfree_dlc_has_gamers_peeved.html) and thinking that it is ok…

The economic principle of DLC is to sell relatively cheaper to produce goods at a relatively higher price. This is why the gaming industry is such a big fan of it, and how it's helped the industry avoid some of the worst of the financial crisis.

Whether or not DLC is actually on the disc, day 1, or day 100, doesn't matter one bit to the cold hard fact: you are paying more to get relatively less. I really, really don't understand the outrage people have towards content already being on the disc, the financial principles are exactly the same.

[Dez]

lol @ bioshock 2 thing. And I couldn't imagine anyone could go lower than benthesa did with their horse armour plugin. Lol it was so hilariously cheap that I can laugh at it even today, hahah :P And do you guys remember the spell tomes, not much better either.

[Korplem]

Whether or not DLC is actually on the disc, day 1, or day 100, doesn't matter one bit to the cold hard fact: you are paying more to get relatively less. I really, really don't understand the outrage people have towards content already being on the disc, the financial principles are exactly the same.

It's true that when someone buys DLC they are not getting the same quantity to dollars ratio but, to me at least, it just seems down right crooked to have some shmuck buy a game disc for $60 then another $5 for something already on the disc. They could at least pretend that the day one release wasn't cut out of the original game like BioWare does.

BioWare's recent excuse was that there was ~12 weeks between the disc going to the presses and to the stores and that allowed them to have a day one DLC. What excuse does 2K have?

[Brother None]

but, to me at least, it just seems down right crooked to have some shmuck buy a game disc for $60 then another $5 for something already on the disc.

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?

[Davion]

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?The differance is that 2K decided to keep parts of the finished product unlocked and asked money for it. Not to add extra's.

[Korplem]

If youre just trying to be thought provoking, you have already made your point. But, if you really, honestly, cannot see anything wrong with it then I don't think I have the words to explain it. I'll try some examples…

Say a game controller has 6 buttons. 5 of them work out of the box but for the 6th you'd have to pay to activate it. That just doesn't seem right. It's already there, the manufacturer is simply obviously milking you for money.

Or, I buy a car and there are cup holders built into it. The problem is that there is a magic force field preventing me from putting my cup there. I have to pay the dealership more to use them, even though they are already there. Doesn't seem right.

I know, stupid examples…

[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 ;)