What's the problem with that if you still think the game you buy is worth what you pay for it? If you don't think that a game without gazillions of class choices etc. is worth the asking price then don't buy it - the rest of us will get the game we want without paying for the development of things we don't want, then we can add in extras as we like, under our control. Win-win if you ask me.

Bioware devs. have stated that they never will sell e.g. horse armour as a DLC; they will make and sell something like the Premium modules for NWN1.

And no, parts of the game is not being hold back for release… The Stone Prisoner were never intended (as I read it) to be part of the original game.

I see no problem at all. First of all, DA doesn't have PvP or even multiplayer as far as I know, so there really is no 'mandatory' aspect to the DLC, i.e. you wont "lose" if you don't have that extra content. I think I read somewhere that the game takes some 40 hours to complete, that's a lot of gameplay, even if you don't go and replay the game with other archetype characters, which without playing the game, looks like a very valid possibility.

I do hope that this DLC will be free without any hassle after let's say 10 years.

I'm still quite grumpy over the fact that the commercial NWN modules were never translated, and packed together with a boxed release here in Germany, in contrast to the "Diamond" or "Platinum" release for the English-speaking market.

My fear is that this will happen with *all* DLC in the future (especially with Atari/Infogrames involved as the publisher).

The German market also never received a full release of the SIMs 1, with *everything* included. *All* Add-Ons. In contrast to the English-speaking market.
And that with EA as the publisher.

These are all the things that make me kind of grumpy.

That's just a question of returns. Would the entire german market be willing to pay triple the price of the english DLC for german translated ones? Or would the higher price put off more people - then you need to increase the unit price further.. but then that might put off even more people.. and so on. Eventually you have to decide whether a target market is just too small for the costs involved for a polished experience and the likely return.

OK … now this is really a rhetorical discussion at this point, but since I seem alone in seeing a general issue with this, let me try to back up and explain:
- PC game sales are no longer at the level they once were, and more recently game sales in general have been suffering.
- At the same time, as stated the costs to develop a game have gone up considerably. Art alone costs millions, meaning that anything the player doesn't need to see might me a wasted asset, and therefore needs to be justified. This is old news and has been discussed here before.
- Piracy has a major impact on PC gaming whether the financial impact is real or partially imagined. So make no mistake, many decisions publishers make are based on PC game piracy.
- Also, more and more publishers are stating either directly or indirectly that used game sales / trades are a huge problem for them. Some estimates show that they consider the second-hand market a bigger issue than piracy, as these are clearly folks who want a game and are willing to pay for it … but the publishers are not getting a cut.
- Consolidation in the gaming industry is an issue. Why? Anyone who follows any industry knows that mergers are terribly inefficient, typically shedding lower level jobs and keeping too many managers. Think gaming is different? hehe.

So … we have lower sales, higher core development costs, higher overhead and infrastructure costs, and a need to battle piracy and the used game market. Yet they need to keep paying execs and deliver shareholder value. So what happens? Digital Distribution, user-accounts, and DLC. How does that all work?

Digital distribution:
- By charging the same as retail, there is automatic profit increase, because of:
> No physical production or distribution
> No 'buying' shelf space
> No potential for resale / trade.
> Costs of server is easily distributed.

User accounts - by this I mean Steam, Bioware store, etc.
- Having a verified user account for a game helps by:
> Ensuring license validity
> Eliminating ability to sell / trade.

Finally, DLC:
- DLC is digitally downloadable content that adds on to an original game in some way but still fully requires the original game installed and registered in some way. What DLC does for the bottom line:
> Using same engine / code-base / etc lowers cost considerably.
> DLC users have low expectations about innovation, just looking for a little more of what they already like. Cuts costs.
> DLC users *must* have the game, and have it registered, to play.
> Once DLC is activated, it is 'dead' to anyone but the original buyer.

So when I look at the value propositions for manufacturers and gamers, here is what I see:

Positives for gamers:
- Still get RPG's made
- Games still cost $50 at most for standard versions. (negative inflation)
- Some sites are easy to download and re-install whenever and require no DVD in drive.

Positives for publishers:
- Enhance profitability from Digital Downloads
- Diminish impact of piracy and used-games through user-accounts.
- Lower perceived value of used games through DLC releases.

Negatives for publishers:
- Keeping prices steady makes profitability difficult.

Negatives for gamers:
- Some digital download sites have agreements that *don't* allow downloads of games after 6 months without paying a fee, and 2 years regardless (EA is one of them)
- DRM continues to be present on many Digital Download versions, and is no less invasive / conflicting / whatever.
- Removal of ability to sell / trade drastically changes the value proposition for gamers.

Impact on pirates:
- none.

So this is where I am coming from. I own hundreds games digitally from many online digital download sites, not even counting casual games or stuff from the iTunes App Store. I am leveraged for thousands of dollars into this system, but I am not blind to the issues with the system … nor with DLC.

There is a *reason* that DLC is largely reviled and not trusted. So let me talk about that for a second:

> DLC is supposed to add new content of some sort to a game, but some of the earliest stuff was Horse Armor and Tiger Woods training films. So we were immediately being charged to unlock piddly content already present on the games we purchased.
> Since then, we have seen the whole spectrum in terms of content and quality in DLC. But one thing not really seen before? Day 1 DLC.

I want to return to something I said earlier - that unvisited areas mean potentially wasted assets. And that costs millions. So as we've seen and read about, optional areas and branching structures are becoming less frequent, because it is too expensive to develop and area that a significant portion of the audience won't visit.

But at the same time, how many of us have talked about how much we love these 'side trips' in RPGs? How much we like to scour every little optional area? Heck, even in non-RPG's I'd argue that the optional stuff was better than the main game in Prototype!

So if optional stuff is expensive, yet RPG fans love it, where are we headed? I would say that what Prime Junta said isn't far off … except for his pricing scheme.
- We've already seen most popular shooters got to 4-6 hour main games with a multiplayer emphasis. The multiplayer requires a valid copy of the game, and is chock full of adverts and available DLC packs such as weapons that can tilt the balance. Of course, single player gamers still pay $50 - 60 for the game.
- I would like to take it as a given that publishers will *never* relent on pricing of the core games - if you think different, remember how often and how quickly they bring up how games at $50 on PC now are *much* cheaper than buying Baldur's Gate 2 for $50 a decade ago due to inflation.
- So … why not make extra stuff cost extra money? If 75% of players in 'Fantasy Game X' use a Fighter, Mage or Archer … why not charge $5 for a BattleMage, $5 for a Cleric, and so on?
- Also, since loads of players only play the main quest areas, why not charge extra for areas such as Watcher's Keep in Throne of Bhaal? I mean, seriously - if you were playing now, and 3 months after release they said 'huge 5 level dungeon for $10' would you balk at it? I know I wouldn't!
- PJ hinted at replays … which to me is the most insidious, but also a reasonable point. Since most people don't finish games even once, let alone multiple times, why *not* charge $10 for replays? You could load saved games all you want, but have to pay for a new game.
- So if I take that model, add on four areas, two different characters and 5 replays, going through something like KotOR that I have completed 6 times would cost me $150 rather than the $50 I paid. Whether or not it is worth that amount is subjective, but it alters the value landscape for games.

My final thought is how customers are treated. Since the beginning of the digital era, due to piracy, customers have largely been treated like potential thieves and criminals. We get DRM on music, 'You Wouldn't Steal a Car …' commercials on DVD's, and invasive DRM on games. This has set up an adversarial relationship where publishers look at gamers as crooks and gamers look at publishers as draconian overlords looking to punish legit customers for the deeds of others.

Back to the matter at hand …
- So when DLC is announced there is mistrust. Big surprise.
- And moreso when one of the first 'Day 1 DLC' is announced.
- Some folks are echoing the EA line 'this is not held back content'. Fine - I will give you the semantics on that one. But given how games are developed, there are relatively few OTHER ways this could happen:
> The marketing folks were coming up with what to put in the CE, and thought 'it would be so cool if we could also include a dungeon', and asked to peel off a few devs and testers at the last moment to pull it off.
> Much earlier on while planning the life-cycle of the product EA & Bioware discussed DLC, and they worked to identify, develop and position areas of the world for separate DLC.
> I see the second as more likely, but what that means is that the 'held back' distinction becomes semantics once again - it was developed by the same folks, tested by the same folks, but always meant to be released separately.

I guess I have belabored this long enough …

I don't disagree with most of your points, txa, and in fact I share most of your grievances -- specifically the way paying customers are treated as criminals, and pirates are inconvenienced not at all. Eventually this situation will go away, but that'll only happen with fully on-line delivery of games -- you just download and install a client, and the content gets streamed from the server. That's very tough to pirate, and I have no doubt that that's why we will be exactly there in another decade or so, when the "last mile" bandwidth problem is history.

Second, if this evolution sees the price of a game go to $150, I ain't buying, simple as that. A really good game is worth up to 50 euros or so for me; I'm just not interested in paying more than that. If they price me out of the market, too bad for them. What's more, I have no doubt at all that if premium games go to $150, there will be room for a whole rich "art-house" ecology at the sub-$50 price point, and I'll be thrilled pink to shift my attention to that.

But from that to what BioWare/EA is doing here… I don't see the connection. If what Mr. Gaider is saying is true (and I have no reason to doubt him), and the DLC is being worked on by a separate team and is not connected to the main game at all, it makes no difference to me that it's released on day zero rather than day 100, 200, or 365.

No, you're not alone on this txa. I also prefer compact and substantial additions to games such as expansion packs and think that the whole dlc mentality is crap. I also feel it's witholding content to milk more money out of the player.

What if dragon age one day becomes a multiplayer game? As far as I know you have to have the same versions to play together, and with all these dlc packages it would probably cause problems.

Ah - I just re-read what DGaider said about this stuff being tasked to the post-release content (PRC) team … so that actually makes sense, and is more like 'option #1' of my scenario above.

Actually, DLC, unlike most expansions, tend to use assets from the main game - it is what makes them such a profitable endeavor! So DLC wouldn't impact compatibility of later content.

Actually, what other similar markets do? If I buy a new or used book it is the same; if I buy a new or used CD it is the same; if I buy a new or used DVD it is the same.

Recently DVD makers have been including one-time digital movie codes with DVD sales, but that is a different form of the same content to battle Netflix and other rental places, not so much new vs. used.

I guess the 'battle against used' DOES really bother me. As someone who has spent several years as a reviewer now, and the vast majority of games on my own dime, I appreciate the ability to take those games and go to Goozex and trade for other games. I am slowly losing that ability due to these practices, which means my budget is in effect shrinking, which means that I will be buying significantly fewer new games.

And while DLC always goes away in terms of used content, it is different here, because this is a $15 equivalent day-of-release DLC as part of a CE. Obviously teh CE inclusions are meant as an incentive to buying the CE, as taht makes for higher profits for EA. That is fine - as I said I'm already on the hook. But the moment I type in that code the next person would only get a 'standard + trinkets' version, which immediately makes it $15 less valuable. I can't think of this ever happening before.

I still can't see the issue. Their job is to sell new copies. There are lots of use-once value-adds out there…buy a new LCD TV and get free movie tickets, for example, and a million others.

I don't really understand TXA's problem as well. You can still sell the game, but you have to sell it cheaper just like usual. AFAIK there is no 3 or 5 install limit on this game which would really cause a problem if you tried to sell it.

I understand you're miffed about not being able to sell the extra content to someone along with the game, but just think of it as one of the bonuses from buying a new CE. It's a heck of a lot better than buying a game with a 5 install limit.

The industry HAS to find more ways to make money or risk going under like a ton of other RPG developers out there. In the past there has only been one way for developers and publishers to make money. Make the game and sell it. That's it. That is also what's wrong with this industry.

Take a look at your own examples. Movies have tons of different ways to make money. First the movie theaters, then Blockbuster, netflicks, HBO, DVD's and probably a few other ways I'm not thinking about. Books don't cost nearly as much money to make. So your examples of DVDs and books aren't exactly fair.

So far computer games have only ONE way to make money and that's it. This isn't even that bad of an idea. You can download the extra content as many times as you want. You just can't transfer it to anyone. Sounds fair to me. Like I said before, at least it's not a 5 install limit.

the vibe that I get from txa's post is not so much the feeling of being taken advantage of with a nickel-and-dime to death pricing scheme of additional content for those who wish to have it, or worrying about selling your stuff later being a big woe, but a feeling that games will be sold full price - minus content.

You can pay more for the rest, if you want to. In that respect, I have to say that I share his concerns. When i shell out full price, cash money for a product, I want the whole enchilada ( i am in SoCal, you know), not the bare minimum they have to do to keep from being nailed for fraud.

The problem being, we dont know the size of the enchilada we're dealing with. They can wittle us down to two classes in an arpg, and just say that they beefed up the side quests, or made the dungeons prettier instead of including more. Now cough up some additional cash if you want to play a caster or an archer, pretty soon youre paying 75 or 80 bucks for what most people would consider the basic game.

Now let's charge em for a little MP action! Or they decide MP is where it's at, and charge extra 20 for SP campaign, after all that takes writers. Will you still be singin the "Hey, it's just business!" song then? I sure wont.

I dont mean to sound too hunkered down in the bunker alarmist about the whole thing, we dont know if it will ever come to that extreme, but that's kinda what I fear.

Alarmist? Naaahhh there was nothing alarming about that post. ;)

These are "ifs" and "maybes" you're talking about. Maybe all computer games will be released for free in the future. Who knows it might happen. But in the time being here is the reality.

They are FINALLY trying more ways to both give us more entertainment and at the same time getting rid of that lame business model of make 1 product for a ton of money and hope to god it sells well and makes a profit.

Why do you think so many publishers/developers have such a hard time in this biz. They were selling one hit wonders with no chance of making any kind of additional income other than with expansions and sequels if it did well enough.

These experimental business models of adding DLC for a few extra dollars is a great thing, imo. When the movies were first invented and movie theaters came out, I would imagine, they also just had one hit wonders. They adapted though and now from one movie there is a ton of ways to sell it, not at the customers expense I might add.

This industry is adapting and hopefully it will adapt to the point that it takes some pressure off of making computer games. That way smaller companies will start popping up and maybe more chances will be taken by the big boys concerning innovation and quality.

You guys just seem a little too paranoid over a silly DLC. I'm pretty sure that a lot of developers and publishers saw the reaction over the whole "horse armor" fiasco. It's not like they were going to put this in the game when it was first released. It has been stated quite clearly that this has always been only a DLC after the intial release of the game.

How long is this game…maybe about 30 - 40 hours. That's about usual for a RPG. If they still have 30 - 40 hours of gametime then what exactly is the problem? You're still getting the whole enchalada.;)

I still remember Dungeon Lords where I paid for a full game and then was expected to pony up for a CE to get the actual game I thought I'd originally bought!! Having said that, I don't see Bioware following that path; they are not about to risk their hard earned reputation with such despicable marketing practices!!

i wasnt exactly referring to Bioware specifically, more looking at a more general approach the industry itself as a whole would start gradually working towards in the coming years. I hope I'm wrong. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to head back down into my bunker and finish my "carnivore's delight" MRE

Sure, some companies may try to sell you an under-valued product and add-on the extras at a fee. Is that really different to a company that sells you a boring game, or a buggy game, or …? At the end of the day, they all represent poor value for those that share that view.

As in all things, you need to weigh the individual value for yourself by reading reviews and peer comments and so on. I just don't see how anyone can draw a specific line. PS:T had unfinished content removed (that various mods can restore). So did BG2 and practically every game. Was I ripped off because content was removed?

When a company tries to sell me an RPG with only two classes and the extras as paid DLC, then I'll decide how much I like the game and whether they deserve my money.

I think it's about the ideal that you're paying what something is worth - when you pay for something.

The trouble with DLC is that it can, potentially, require little effort to produce and yet carry a significant pricetag. Naturally, that's impossible to measure - especially since few people really understand what goes into developing these things.

But I'd certainly claim that it's human nature to get as much as you can, for as little effort as possible. That's a sad state of affairs, but that's how it is - especially in the business world.

The corporate culture so prevalent in this industry is perpetuating this mindset - and there's no way DLC will represent the same kind of value as a genuine expansion - in the majority of cases. It's just a natural evolution of greed, and it's easier if we just accept that's how it's going to be.

The "danger" if you have a problem with rewarding no effort, is that few people have a problem with a 5$ og 10$ pricetag. It's not a lot of money, so you don't really care about the value. That's a psychological factor that is at the heart of the idea of DLC. If they put together 3 Fallout 3 DLCs and sold it as an expansion for 30$ - I think they'd lose a chunk of sales, because the value is pretty dubious if you ask me.

I like the natural evolution of greed remark. Now all you need is lightning going off in the background and black clouds rolling in to set the mood properly.:p

It's not the natural evolution of greed. It's the natural evolution of our hobby.

How do developers or publishers make their money? Selling their games right? Well back in the day when one guy could make a game this worked well. Hell, one guy did so well he went into outerspace ;)

Now with AAA games costing millions this just doesn't make any sense and it is killing some great developers out there. Maybe if Troika had some DLC or other kinds of stuff to add onto their games they would still be in business. Instead they died out because the only way for them to make any kind of money for all their work was with just one sale. I know I only bought Arcanum, Bloodlines, TOEE once.

In any case, that's the way I see it and I'm glad devs and publishers are expanding their options by offering a variety of ways to enhance their intial product.

Well, I'll rephrase and say it's the natural evolution of the industry - based on the greed motivator ;)

Yeah, they're evolving ;)

But Troika wasn't motivated by greed - they were motivated by a creative drive. Unfortunately, they didn't have the technical expertise and business savvy to combine their creative motivation with sound business practice.

That's why greedy people generally do better in terms of business.

But who's got the respect of the enthusiast fanbase? I know what I'd prefer if I had to choose between a succesful business and respect from my peers. I'm in the minority though.

Good for you and all supporters of DLC :)

Well, to me it's rather like in the music industry:

Publisher: "You give us your game, and receive money for that.
And we'll do anything we want to do with it."

A snippet from the music industry (taken from Wikipedia)

This is pure greed.


The result is clear: An incredibly high amount of local variants of music CDs in the case of the Corrs, a possibly even higher variance in Single CDs (seen with Enya and Corrs), including some extra, special, special extraordinary versions for single countries (there are some *very* special versions of albums by the Corrs out there for Singapore, Taiwan and Japan).

A similar thing happens for games: Local variants of games, and I don't mean cut content, but rather the availability of bonus content. And patches. I don't think I need to say that some countries don't receive patches for their localized game versions. In contrast to the international market, which *always* has a higher priority.

I'm just waiting for the day when the first games appear with bonus content available only in certain countries.

Like what happens with many music CDs.


I still believe that this wasn't a fiasco - not from a business point of view.

From a reputation point of view - maybe. BUt that doesn't count.

What only counts are dineros. Hard coins.