DLC is getting ridiculous - The rant

[McJob]

DLC is not "getting ridiculous". Thank you to Timestamp for posting my quote, and let me just make it clear one more time.

Games are expensive.

Don't use indie developers as a shield to hide behind, since the majority of indie developers fail due to their financial situation, as with a lot of start-up businesses. AAA Development is about playing massive risks, and so it's absolutely crucial that they find safe ways to offset that risk by increasing their possible return.

Don't use "old games didn't need DLC" as an excuse. Games have to progress forward and change, because with every new game, consumers expectations change. You also have to factor in that the economy has been in decline since the 90s, and the games market isn't as tight and small as it once was. We're now facing a new era of oversaturation and loss of confidence from the mainstream market, and it doesn't help that the mobile market exists to sap a lot of the profit that once could have gone to the big console game studios.

No studio wants to release a broken product, but the unfortunate reality is that if you keep letting timelines slip because of X problem, the game never comes out or people lose interest in the product. This is basic software development. Every forgetin' programmer in the world knows that at some point they'll have to ship it, regardless of how many bugs are left in the system. The thing is that systems are so complicated these days in comparison to ye olde games, that of course they're going to have a gigantic number of bugs and glitches.

Did you know that in the 80s and 90s, bugs were actually used as selling points in the manual and promotional material? That's right, companies then were trying to pawn off broken products on you, since they would develop, send the product to the publishing stage and THEN test after it had been copied to cartridge or whatever medium. And unlike now, there was no way to update games once they were on the medium.

Don't bitch and moan about Xbox Live. Microsoft have to offer servers, moderators and also have deals with companies like Netflix and so forth, all of which need to be paid for. XBL is one of the most expensive active operations Microsoft offers, and the only way to offset the costs is to turn it into a subscription service.

The OP clearly doesn't understand anything about basic business logic or the way our world is constantly changing. Believe me, without DLC, the gaming market would be a much different, much scarier, crappier place.

[Ad Bot]

[otto-san]

this blog has a lot of stuff about DLC and game budgets in general (and tons of other gamedev questions) that is probably worth reading. this is one post that links to several other posts on the same subject

http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/131689626952/on-the-topic-of-on-disc-dlc-and-development

also listen to mcjob cus he's right

[Bisjac]

Everyone hates it but they keep buying it.

They only continue to do so because it works.

[AtlasBlue]

As much as I dislike the idea of paid DLC, if I like the base game enough and the DLC doesn't massively alter gameplay to the point where it should have been included in the base game, I'll fold on my word and buy it.

I haven't paid for DLC in a very long time.

[Frostbyte]

TBH I'm fine with DLC that adds MORE to the game not what should have already been there, like a side of the story from another character's perspective with say some extra stuff added (GTA 4's Expansions), or that feels like a conversion for an already solid game (like BFBC2 Veitnam) and I'm even down for cosmetic items in multi so long as it doesn't add any buffs or whatever and that they stay cheap (1$ for a hat is fine imo but I'd rather like a bundle of cosmetics)

DLC IMO feels stuffty when you get something that should have already been there, gives you a pay 2 win advantage over others, or is unfairly priced for what you're getting

[Space1255]

I'm just gonna make a list of what ideal DLC would be. Don't want to accidentally start an argument.

List:
- Extra / alternate plot routes for the game
- Bonus levels
- Bonus character / item packs (maaaybe individual components if needed)
And a joke:
- Ultra HD Breast Jiggling Physics: 15000% more jiggling! ($9999.99)
Edit: now I'm imagining a 16 bit character with 4K rendered breasts going absolutely ballistic

[Checko2100]

I like to buy the 60$ games because they always satisfy what I wanted
I like to buy the DLC because they add more than what I wanted and because I like to support companies that make my days more enjoyable

so really im in favor of dlcs

[Silleb²]

The sims is a good example of why I think DLC and expansion packs are bullstuff.

You can buy the original game alone and only have a few things to work with in game then come the extras. You're gonna end up spending over 90 bucks just for wanting like 3 new furniture items or cars or whatever added in. It's complete bullstuff. They don't change up gameplay in a way that they should and is just a way for these companies to make their money. Like SPace1255 did, I'm gonna list what DLC should be to actually get me to like it

+New characters with their own playstyles
+Extra levels
+All new ways to play in general

[Hansome duded]

if its tiny little stuff then i wont get dlc

but if its some great new content that totally adds onto the base game in a great way, and i think the price is reasonable, then i'll go for dlc

[Awesomebread²]

i just don't understand when a season pass is almost as much as the base game itself

[McZealot]

i'm genuinely confused by mcjob's statement that without DLC the gaming market would be a much crappier place. not saying its wrong i just dont understand how he made that connection

this is why i respect a few companies like CDPR and Bethesda so much. they could have a lot more money if they exploited their audience, but they wont. the Witcher 3 has 14 free dlc packs, and 2 huge expansions for $20. thats a great deal. 'dragonborn' is an absolutely insane amount of content for $20, and my favorite dlc ever. i hear good things about nuka world and the other fo4 dlc, even though i honestly didnt enjoy the base game. they will be adding vive support next year, which is 100% going to guarantee my playthrough of it.

by the way, witcher 3 is the best game ever made in my opinion. every time i pick it up im blown away. it is a masterpiece in every regard. the devs are amazing and released tons of free dlcs and each quest is so beautifully written you will find random contracts and other things like it extremely emotional. i'll never forget when i first picked it up and ran off into the wild ignoring the main quest, picking out a random contract from a notice board and then getting blown away as the side-quest expanded into this huge conspiracy with an extremely emotional end.

only thing i ever didnt like about the game was this one extremely stuffty qwent quest. they offer you 15 thousand coins but force you to give away half of it at the end even if you obviously dont want to. really irritates me

[otto-san]

i'm genuinely confused by mcjob's statement that without DLC the gaming market would be a much crappier place. not saying its wrong i just dont understand how he made that connection

making DLC means devs can ideally create more higher-quality content over the lifespan of a title. without dlc, all the expansions that bethesda games have like you said would either not exist, or it would be in the game at diminished quality (and other parts of the game would likely suffer as well). dlc is not inherently anti-consumer, in fact, the general acceptance of paid dlc means that good devs can provide fresh new content to a game after its release without having to worry about getting paid for it. game development isn't just a hobby, it's a business, and if you can't prove that a project is going to turn a profit in a AAA studio, you probably aren't going to get very far with it. it's just not practical to create loads of new content all the time for free, that stuff takes time and labor, both of which are things that studios have to pay for.

[McJob]

CD Projekt Red own GoG.com. That storefront brings in a SIGNIFICANT amount of additional funds that mean they can afford to pay developers to create content not intended for sale. They also focus on only one or two projects at a time, which means that they don't have to stretch their budgets to equally cover development costs. IIRC, the legal structure of their home country, Poland, is looser and the taxation/salary schemes aren't as high as other countries (I may be wrong).

Valve are similar, but on a larger scaler. The key difference is that Valve have more financial assets, but they also have more older games to actively support and they've focused more of their staff onto the storefront than game development.

My point wasn't necessarily that DLC itself is responsible for the continued strength and quality of the AAA market. My point is that practices which people commonly interpret as "money-making schemes" are necessary to allow studios to keep producing top-tier entertainment, and DLC are one of the most common.

[McZealot]

typically "DLC", even though it constitutes any form of additional content, is used to refer to small additions to the game sold for 1- 5 dollars, like a new gun or a free vehicle. the word people use for the actually good dlc like what skyrim and witcher 3 have is 'usually referred to as an expansion

typically dlc is stuff that would have likely been in the game otherwise (often built in entirely, just inaccessible until you pay) and an expansion is something released 6 months to a year later

[Neventii]

Play Morrowind or older games to escape this paradigm.