DLC and it's future in videogames

[YourKock'sReallyGreat 0]

I was having a conversation with my best friend the other day about Downloadable Content and the role that it plays with videogames today. He is strictly against it due to the fact that developers might hold off on some stuff and release it later for people to spend more money on the game. He's argument is that if you are paying full price for the game you should be receiving 100 percent of the game. He was also saying that if DLC becomes too popular that would just give the developers even more of a reason to release unfinished 100 percent games.

 

I understand the point that he was making. I feel that if a developer wants to add some new skins, weapons, characters, maps and levels a couple of months after the game comes out it is not a big deal. I especially do not mind if the sequels usually take another 2-3 years to come out and the DLC is 5-10 dollars tops. My main problem is when you see DLC coming out for a game that was just released a month or two prior. I understand that the developer is walking a very thin line of when to release it. They have to release it while people are still interested in the game and striking when the iron is hot. It just feels like a ripoff and why wasn't that put into the game already.

 

What do you think the future of DLC is going to be? Are developers just going to release games and then an update every couple of months for the game instead of coming out with sequels? I read a post awhile ago about how someone wants the Smackdown series to be. I think it might be possible on the next gen videogame systems. Their argument is that THQ should release the game lets say it is Smackdown 2012 for the PS4. The game comes out with all the current wrestlers, ppvs, story mode, attires, options, etc. Instead of THQ making Smackdown 2013 they should just come out with DLC every 2 months with New Wrestlers, updated PPV arenas, new moves, Legends, etc. You are still paying 60 dollars every year but instead of buying a new game you are adding to the base of your current game. This persons argument is that if you do this after 3-4 years you would have a base game that had 1000's of moves, a roster around 200, 3-4 attires per wrestler, 70 different arenas, a ton of story modes, etc.

[Mike wanna be 0]

It's nice for the developers, they can get cash out of a customer who buys their game through eBay, or used from GameStop or something where they'd normally get nothing.

 

I haven't bought any DLC yet so I'm probably not qualified to speak on the subject. I think stuff that's on-disc that needs to be unlocked through DLC is bullshit, but stuff that's not on disc is acceptable. I think holding back free patches to release simultaneously with DLC is bullshit (hellooooooo, Fable 2).

 

Next-gen, I think, will go the way of Steam. 95+% of the sales are through digital download, but you can still go to the store and buy a hard copy on a disc and have it unlock that way if you have a shitty internet connection or something.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

I was having a conversation with my best friend the other day about Downloadable Content and the role that it plays with videogames today. He is strictly against it due to the fact that developers might hold off on some stuff and release it later for people to spend more money on the game. He's argument is that if you are paying full price for the game you should be receiving 100 percent of the game. He was also saying that if DLC becomes too popular that would just give the developers even more of a reason to release unfinished 100 percent games.

 

This is what I'm against, but then there's nothing making you buy that type of DLC. If you see some DLC on the market place and its 500kb, chances are its a few string of coding that will unlock something on the disk. Konami are really bad for this (Soul Calibur, Ace Combat, etc). As long as you're educated to the games, you shouldn't have a problem.

 

I understand the point that he was making. I feel that if a developer wants to add some new skins, weapons, characters, maps and levels a couple of months after the game comes out it is not a big deal. I especially do not mind if the sequels usually take another 2-3 years to come out and the DLC is 5-10 dollars tops. My main problem is when you see DLC coming out for a game that was just released a month or two prior. I understand that the developer is walking a very thin line of when to release it. They have to release it while people are still interested in the game and striking when the iron is hot. It just feels like a ripoff and why wasn't that put into the game already.

 

A game can be complete for around 4 months before it hits the stores. That's in extreme cases, most games are complete, or 'Gold' for a month or two. The delay after that is marketing, production and logistics. Who's to say that in those few months between the game being finished and the game hitting the stores, the developers haven't genuinly thought of a cool idea to release as DLC? Of course, I can understand the skepticism around it. The longest part of most games is developing/adapting a game engine. Once that's been done its the creation of the content, which should be pretty straight forward if you have decent coders and testers.

What do you think the future of DLC is going to be? Are developers just going to release games and then an update every couple of months for the game instead of coming out with sequels? I read a post awhile ago about how someone wants the Smackdown series to be. I think it might be possible on the next gen videogame systems.

 

The latest GTAIV DLC is a great example of what DLC content should be. Its almost a whole new game, only it piggy backs on the exsitant engine and coding of the main game.

 

Their argument is that THQ should release the game lets say it is Smackdown 2012 for the PS4. The game comes out with all the current wrestlers, ppvs, story mode, attires, options, etc. Instead of THQ making Smackdown 2013 they should just come out with DLC every 2 months with New Wrestlers, updated PPV arenas, new moves, Legends, etc. You are still paying 60 dollars every year but instead of buying a new game you are adding to the base of your current game. This persons argument is that if you do this after 3-4 years you would have a base game that had 1000's of moves, a roster around 200, 3-4 attires per wrestler, 70 different arenas, a ton of story modes, etc

 

The only problem with this would be you'd be stuck with that games Engine and graphics for the rest of its life. What if the engine sucked and had so many flaws it wasn't possible to fix it? How long would they have to have the main game in production for it stand up to the test of time? After you've sank all your money into upgrading and downloading the various DLC, they turn their backs and go 'Hey, you know what, we're going to release a new SDvRaw with a new engine?

 

DLC will only get bigger and more advanced, which is why 'next' next gen will have even bigger HDs. Credit to where its due, Sony thought a head when they shipped out the PS3 with the larger HDs. Even if it was just blind luck, they seem to be a head in the digital distribution stakes. Just a shame they've messed so many other things up.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think charging 10 bucks or so for just one new level and maybe a couple new items is kind of lame (like in Fallout 3).

 

I liked the Civilization approach where they would release the game, then maybe every six months or so release a whole new add on to the game, which would include new nations, new units, new quests, etc. So it comes out just when you might start to get bored...and sure the costs is a little bit more than typical DLC, but you're getting a lot for your money, at least.

[dubq 0]

I like DLC when the pricepoint is $5 or lower. Anything above that and it better be DAMNED good.

[Celtic Jobber 0]

Burnout Paradise has some really great DLC and most of it has been free so far (although it could be argued that bikes and custom soundtracks on the PS3 version should've been on the disc when the game shipped). I also enjoy the DLC in Rock Band, although it gets kind of addictive. I don't mind DLC at all really.

[AnonymousBroccoli 0]

There's a lot of DLC that's bullshit. The vast majority, I'd say. The new trend of holding entire levels off the retail release is especially bullshit. (Hi, Tomb Raider: Underworld.) Worse in that case is the exclusivity. Even if your console is capable of doing DLC (DS and PS2 aren't, I'm pretty sure PSP's is limited, and I know Wii's is), you might not be getting it, because the other console's company shelled out the bucks. Hey, thanks. I bought your game, and can't finish it, even if I wanted to pay extra for it.

 

Even for the stuff that isn't a shameless money grab, I'm not a big fan of it. Simply because of the trappings of digital purchases--DRM issues, no re-sale or refunds, locked to one platform, hard drive space, etc.

 

Valve's model is pretty great for all parties. Develop a reputation for releasing frequent, free, and easy updates, and people will want to buy your games. (Though, again, their games are all digital purchases, so I'm not really wont to buy their stuff.) Criterion's done a pretty good job of this on the console side with Burnout Paradise, though their more recent Party Pack and cars aren't doing them a lot of favours.

 

You're also excluding a big chunk of your audience, even if you release for every platform, and free. Not everyone does their gaming with an online system, so they can't access anything. And in the case of the 360, not everyone has a hard drive.

[luke-o 0]

I'm all for DLC, if done properlly. It's my one big gripe with the Wii is it's lack of DLC. Hell I'd buy a 360 and Burnout Paradise just for the Legendary Cars DLC and I don't even like Burnout Paradise.

[AndrewTS 0]

(stuff)

 

Agreed with almost all points, and especially noticeable for situations like Prince of Persia 2009, GTA4, etc.

 

Although if you didn't buy a hard drive for the 360, that's your fault. You can buy an incomplete-but-functional system for 200 bucks, and then get an HDD later, or do it all at once.

 

There usually are other options besides DLC for major content, if you wait tho. For example, Game of the Year Editions often have the extra content. The 360 release of Tomb Raider Anniversary was all DLC for Legend at first, but they released a boxed version of it later.

 

Renting the games with the extra content or holding off if you didn't buy it at first is doable. Plus, you could always bum a friend's broadband if you have the HDD.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Also, you better get used to Digital Distribution as it'll probably be industry standard sooner then you think.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I think of it like a software upgrade. I paid for SVR 09 on clearance but I had I paid retail for it $60. So let's say I paid 460 for it, next year they can release a roster update for 10 bucks and I won't have to buy next year's version for $60.

 

THq doesn't have make an instruction booklet, disc, or ship the products to the store. It will probably be more cost effective for them. For those people who didn't buy 09, they can still can ship 2010 in a more limited release.

[AndrewTS 0]

Also, you better get used to Digital Distribution as it'll probably be industry standard sooner then you think.

 

So how soon we going to have 70%+ broadband distribution? Until then I wouldn't count on it.

 

I think that you'll see the minor publishers doing it a lot sooner than the major publishers. We're already seeing titles appearing as downloadable titles that are small-budget, riskier titles.

 

If you think EA is going to release a digdist-exclusive Madden release for a major discount when they're guaranteed millions of sales at the $60 price point annually, you crazy.

[Angles Broken Fricken Neck 0]

My main gripe with DLC isthe fact that with the majority of current DLC its basicly paying for what used to be "enter this code to unlock secret character". Im the first to admit that I paid for the SD vs Raw DLC because it added some new people into the game, was it worth it? No, not really, because once the novelty of hearing the awsome version of "priceless" its the same game ive got tired of playing now.

 

However, if they were to release a few new RTWM storylines, id jump at the chance. This is what DLC should be. Rockstar toyed with the idea back on the PS1 with the original GTA and the London 1969 addon. It was a really cheap budget title, that used the existing code of GTA to run the new scenario, which is what they have done with Lost and the Damned.

 

Now, the downside and the best example i have is Fallout 3. PC and 360 are getting some DLC which makes the game longer. So clearly the fallout people (cant remember the developer) wrote an ending depending on your descision that tied everything up. Now they are releasing some content that lets you play on after the main quest, which is going to envolve a rewritten main quest ending (unless you only unlock the extra content if you do you know what). Exclustivity with DLC should not be allowed, developers want a game to continue past its DVD enabled bounderies, but if your PS3 they dont give a rats ass. So having paid full price for a game which many belived to be complete, its being Lucas'D with new endings etc.

 

Sadly DLC is going to be the way we play games. Its still a bit early weither or not it will benefit gamers, when the day comes that everything is direct download rather than on Disk, i forsee the games we purchase coming in installments; i.e A few levels per DLC until we eventually have the full lucas'D vision. But they need to bring the price of games down so the DLC doesnt make an average game cost 10-20 pounds/dollars more than we originally wanted to pay for complete.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Also, you better get used to Digital Distribution as it'll probably be industry standard sooner then you think.

 

So how soon we going to have 70%+ broadband distribution? Until then I wouldn't count on it.

 

I think that you'll see the minor publishers doing it a lot sooner than the major publishers. We're already seeing titles appearing as downloadable titles that are small-budget, riskier titles.

 

If you think EA is going to release a digdist-exclusive Madden release for a major discount when they're guaranteed millions of sales at the $60 price point annually, you crazy.

 

Well, I wasn't talking about by the end of this decade. But there's this feeling amongst most people that Digital Distribution is just a crazy dream. Most PC games will probably end up being Digital Distribution only by the end of next decade. Easier and cheaper and 'pirate safe' - see how much 'Steam' has evolved over the last 5 years.

 

I can't speak on behalf of the US, but in the percent of house holds with the Internet is pretty high (56% as of August 08), with the Government making it an issue to have everyone digital and broadband by 2012 (you'd think they'd have other things to worry about but that's besides the point).

 

Sony I think had 'Digdist' in mind with the PS3 due to his rather large HD, so it'll be interesting to see how the PS3 fairs in that area of the market once they've (finally) got their PS3 Home sorted out and ready to act as a virtual shop for all kinds of stuff.

 

Xbox already have netflix, piping movies onto your xbox via the internet, as well as demos and updates for games.

 

They'll always be a market for the physical entity, as shops (and governments) would cry bloody murder if suddenly all those jobs and economy disappeared into cyber space. I was probably a bit bold in suggesting it would be industry standard, but I think it'll be a 50/50 split between getting it in a store, or downloading via DigDist. Sorry if this is distracting from the debate about DLC, but I think its semi linked together.

[YourKock'sReallyGreat 0]

If everything became digital download it would create a monopoly. If Ea only sold Madden 2015 off of ea.com it would hurt sales at Best Buy, Walmart etc. It would also hurt sale prices and it would kill off the used videogame market as well.

[Scroby 0]

I kinda have a love/hate relationship when it comes to DLC. A lot of DLC I like, but some of the stuff makes me question weather I should get it or not and if it's really needed.

 

Take the Smackdown vs Raw 2009 DLC (Xbox hasn't gotten yet!), while I like the idea of their being DLC for new wrestlers/moves/entrances, isn't THQ/Yukes just gonna release a 2010 verison anyways and I think a lot of developers are missing the big picture with that. I really don't want to buy a whole bunch of add ons when there will be a sequal coming out in less than a year. Maybe if the newest verison/sequal came out in two years or so, I wouldn't be so worried about buying a bunch of add ons or feel like I'm wasting my money.

 

That's what I like about the Fallout 3/GTA IV/Fable 2 DLC. There's really no mention of any kind of sequal or anything and if there would be a new version of any of those games you know it won't be out for quite awhile. Halo/Bungie is also a good example of use of DLC content. Where they release stuff until they make mention of a sequal then they focus more on making that sequal.

 

The one thing I hate about DLC, is that developers tend to use it to fix bugs that should have been fixed before the game was released or made "Gold". Star Wars Force Unleashed is a great example of that. When the game first came out, it was buggy as fuck. The game literally made me walk for part of a level cause the game had an bug and wouldn't allow me to run. A game that is that buggy should have been delayed to fix those problems but instead we got "Oops..now you gotta wait for a update/patch to fix the game." Which I didn't have time to wait for because I rented the game. I also don't like DLC that messes up the game. This happen with me and Fable 2. I recently downloaded the Knothole Island DLC and it messed up my game just a little. There's a mission you have to do after you beat the game and I didn't finish it cause I decided to download the DLC, after I downloaded the DLC content, the game now freezes when I try to go back to that place to finish the mission. So now I need a patch...that hasn't be released yet.

[Angles Broken Fricken Neck 0]

The Sd vs Raw DLC is buggy as hell also, if you play online against someone who hasnt got the DLC all your Caws movesets and custom entrance etc gets defaulted to hardcore holly, and thus you must redo all of it. (the caw itself is untouched however)

[AnonymousBroccoli 0]

If everything became digital download it would create a monopoly. If Ea only sold Madden 2015 off of ea.com it would hurt sales at Best Buy, Walmart etc. It would also hurt sale prices and it would kill off the used videogame market as well.

I think most publishers and developers would be fine with telling GameStop to FOAD.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

If everything became digital download it would create a monopoly. If Ea only sold Madden 2015 off of ea.com it would hurt sales at Best Buy, Walmart etc. It would also hurt sale prices and it would kill off the used videogame market as well.

 

Developers and publishers don't like the used videogame market, so I'd see this as a reason why they'd be for 'DigDist'. It controls the flow of the games and the money they received. End of the day its all about money. Like I mentioned, I think the only thing hold DigDist back from being 100% industry standard by 2020 (that sounds strange) is the fact that it would create a lot of unemployment and create and economic black hole on the high streets.

[Broward83 0]

If everything became digital download it would create a monopoly. If Ea only sold Madden 2015 off of ea.com it would hurt sales at Best Buy, Walmart etc. It would also hurt sale prices and it would kill off the used videogame market as well.

I think most publishers and developers would be fine with telling GameStop to FOAD.

 

I actually don't think that's the case when those same developers are the one's providing GameStop with exclusive unlock codes / DLC / swag for customers purchasing the game from GS.

 

I mean, Burnout had extra cars. Last Remnant had extra formations. Godfather 2 is an extra (and tougher, I think) mob member to help you out. Afro Samurai gave out figurines of Afro for reserves.. I think they view GameStop as a viable place for them to market their games to.

 

 

[AndrewTS 0]

I've come to the conclusion that DLC is bullshit, and people who pay money for it are fools.

 

I've found no room for exceptions for this. The only "DLC" I thought was any good was the Crackdown Free For All pack--which was free, so it doesn't really count, and Tomb Raider Anniversary--which used the Legend disc's assets to keep the game size down. (Also, it was released on disc anyway).

 

All too often, companies are charging you for crap on the disc already, or something of no worthwhile value.

 

http://www.destructoid.com/the-most-rubbis...ve-124257.phtml

[ChrisMWaters 0]

One of the things I think is good for DLC is that, unlike its predicessors, this will probably mean there won't be 500 versions of Street Fighter IV released.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

I'm fine with DLC that means new levels, or characters to games. When they charge almost $10 for new character skins...thats what I get a little pissy over DLC.

[AndrewTS 0]

One of the things I think is good for DLC is that, unlike its predicessors, this will probably mean there won't be 500 versions of Street Fighter IV released.

 

Poor, naive Chris...

 

Japan in general seems to be very iffy about DLC. I can't think of many Japanese companies that do it, and of the ones that do--Namco-Bandai--they're absolutely evil about it.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Namco and Kanomi can go fuck themselves with their shitty DLC. I don't think I've seen DLC released by them over 1mb yet!

[Special K 0]

I wonder what will happen when the current systems fall out of vogue and networks die off. Granted, I hope the current generation of hardware stays around for QUITE a while, but retrogaming might be a huge pain in 10-odd years. Of course we might be downloading Blu-Ray games in a flash on the next consoles.

[AndrewTS 0]

I wonder what will happen when the current systems fall out of vogue and networks die off. Granted, I hope the current generation of hardware stays around for QUITE a while, but retrogaming might be a huge pain in 10-odd years. Of course we might be downloading Blu-Ray games in a flash on the next consoles.

 

I don't think we'll see a truly "new" system for a while.

 

Microsoft is sitting pretty right now. They finally got the bugs out of the 360 it appears, and the system is finally profitable. They're sitting on the industry leader (technically) and have really good software sales. I'm sure they're doing the R&D for a new system, but with the current economy it's safe for them to hold off a while.

 

Sony releasing a new system soon would be suicide. They're still not where they want to be user base wise, and they're got a lot of ground to try to make up for. They need to keep supporting it strong for another 4 years I would say.

 

Nintendo will likely roll out multi-colored Wiis if their sales numbers start to slip, possibly Wii HD if we see HDTV penetration increase within the next few years. However, for the immediate future they've got DSi coming out to print money.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

I wonder what will happen when the current systems fall out of vogue and networks die off. Granted, I hope the current generation of hardware stays around for QUITE a while, but retrogaming might be a huge pain in 10-odd years. Of course we might be downloading Blu-Ray games in a flash on the next consoles.

 

They'll be no new consoles as soon as some people think (2010 onwards!!!!) due to the whole 'credit crunch' bullshit. Besides, they don't need to for the reasons Andrew has stated. I can see bigger Xbox HDs being released before a new console.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Personally, there isn't TOO much need for new systems anytime soon, IMO.

 

I mean, it's not like the graphics are going to get TOO much better any time in the near future, after all. Except for MAYBE the Wii, but Mario Galaxy proved, with effort, you can still do a damn good job.

 

That's not to say I can see any of today's systems having a lifespan like the Atari 2600 (14 years and 2 months is tough to beat), but still...probably a few years longer than their predecessors (X-Box, PS2 (maybe) and Game Cube.)

[AndrewTS 0]

They'll be no new consoles as soon as some people think (2010 onwards!!!!) due to the whole 'credit crunch' bullshit. Besides, they don't need to for the reasons Andrew has stated. I can see bigger Xbox HDs being released before a new console.

 

If I were a betting man, I'd say 2012 at the earliest, with WiiHD likely before then/first.