Slashdot Mirror
Bethesda Talks DLC Size and Limitations
Gamasutra has an interview with Pete Hines, product manager for Fallout 3, about Bethesda's philosophy for DLC, and how it's changed over the years. Quoting:
"All these people are out there playing our game by the hundreds of thousands on a daily basis and we want to be able to bring those folks something they could do in a much shorter time frame, rather than just saying, 'See you next year.' That instantly ruled out doing a big expansion because those things just take so damn long to do. So we started looking at the biggest stuff we'd done that people really liked, but that we could do in smaller, digestible chunks. That's where we came to the Knights of the Nine model — it's substantive and it adds multiple hours of game play and new items, but we can do it in a time frame that allows us to get it out without waiting forever. That's what we've gone for with Fallout 3."
I haven't even RTFA. But it makes sense to sell DLC for extra $$. Especially when you know that lots of people are hooked on to your game. Cashing in on addiction is a very old strategy.
WOOOO!
...that the DLC model was supposed to be modeled after the mod communities for Quake and Unreal. Yet somehow, I have seen almost no sign of anything that looks like post-release modifications. Studios seem to hold back a bit of content, then release that as DLC. Not exactly the original intent. Especially when the game is incomplete without the DLC.
(Interestingly, Mega Man 9 walked a fine line there. Technically, all the "DLC" was already in the executable. Yet the stuff you paid for was truly above and beyond the primary gameplay. Which made it ideal as either Easter Eggs or DLC. Kudos to Capcom for at least getting that right.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Am I the only person who hasn't a clue what DLC means? Neither the summary nor the fucking article can be bothered to tell me.
Downloadable content
DownLoadable Content.
Downloadable content
Ah, thank you. That makes this much easier t'read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content
Yes.
Too bad Bethesda can't seem to patch their games. VATS (the over-hyped, poor attempt at appeasing turn-based combat fans and only marketable aspect of the game's combat) has been broken for months now. I'd take "see you in a year" if it meant they actually fixed more bugs than they made. http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=973957
The GP is in the right here, just the other day I came across the usage of this term for the first time. I just now figured out what my cousin was talking about (XBox related). Funny thing is, I am the geek out of us. You'd think I was the guy who'd be speaking in tongues. It gave me a little insight into the way "we" talk to "them" (Nvidia GeForce MX 90000 XP WC1000 P4 512Mhz).
That instantly ruled out doing a big expansion because those things just take so damn long to do.
Isn't that what Valve said about the Half-Life 2 episodes?
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
You know what grinded my gears? The fact that RE5 touted its multiplayer abilities, which is unique for a Resident Evil game looking at previous offerings in the series.
However, it turns out that one of the most popular game modes for multiplayer was released as DLC only a few days after it hit the shelf for yet another five bucks ontop of the game cost.
The worst part about this you say?? The five dollar DLC was merely an unlock tag FOR CONTENT ON THE GAME DISC YOU ALREADY BOUGHT. I don't consider that DLC, I consider that disrespectful to the fanbase and Bethesda got my money because of this (and I will prob even buy the two DLC map addons for Fallout since I like the game and it's not already on the disc I purchased)
I read the headline, and was trying to think why the military hospital was using an old network protocol.
Shouldn't it just be "DC" then? It's only two words, not three.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Download is often abbreviated as DL, like "DL speed" or "# DLs".
Also, DC stands for a lot of other things, but if I see DLC I immediately think of games since there's no other notable meanings of DLC that I know of.
Bethesda need to be quiet. We're all already very mad that their patch in January broke the game quite badly, and their recent patch did not fix it. We got the usual Bethesda Runaround. In any case, instead of making pointless content that unlocks stuff we shouldve had in the first place, or that no one wants, they should fix their game so we can actually play it. Its really irritating.
Apparently you're not a console fanboy - this seems to be common parlance amongst PS3/X-Boxers.
The marketing drones clearly decided that "expansion pack" or "add on" or other "English" phrases were too "understandable" for "humans" and so began employing this crappy acronym instead. Another favourite of mine is "SKU" which apparently means "thing for sale" or "item for sale", although I am unsure of its precise meaning.
So get some DLC in your SKU, pronto.
Read Pynchon.
I thought the process was more along the lines of:
1: Wait for Microsoft to cut them a check
2: Release DLC for X-Box
3: Profit!
(no ambiguous steps here).
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
As far as I am concerned, Bethesda still hasn't released a final, stable build of the base game. Instead of wasting time with minor content additions, they should really sort out the fundamental stability problems the PC version of Fallout 3 continues to have.
In particular, I have personally seen severe stability issues with this game on three completely separate PCs (out of a total of three that I have tried it on, so 100%). Two of these were built in the last 12 months (one, sadly, for the express purpose of playing Fallout 3... a friend of mine is a tad obsessed with Oblivion and got rather overexcited about F3). All of them contain nothing but quality brand name parts etc, and all of them run other games well. Two of them even run Crysis well at very high detail.
Yet Fallout 3 three crashes on all of them - not just nice crashes, but serious, OS-killing crashes as well as crashes to desktop. On one, it's every hour or so. On another, when specific events happen (like opening VATS, shooting things... BAM back to desktop). On the third, it's around 5-15 minutes between crashes. On all three of them, it's basically not worth playing - you just know that the game is going to die on you unexpectedly sooner or later, which really breaks the immersion and doesn't exactly promote investment of time into playing it.
Over at the Bethesda forums, gangs of fanboys ramble on about how the game works well for them on their systems so therefore anyone who has issues must be experiencing a problem with their PC, not the game. But when you have multiple PCs, which otherwise run well in a variety of similar applications, and one particular game causes serious and replicable crashes, then there is something wrong with the game. And it's clear from the forums and from a quick Google search that there are many, many others who have similar issues.
So less DLC, more properly tested and polished games!!! Dammit Bethesda, I loved Oblivion and you've pretty much burnt through your credits with this farce.
Read Pynchon.
I think they mis-quoted him. What he probably said was:
But but...I *like* expansions. Tribunal and Bloodmoon for Morrowind were quite good. All the cheap downloadable crap for Oblivion was pretty mediocre, and I get the impression that it's the same for Fallout 3.
I will hold off buying any of their games until I see the DLC available for PS3 first.
Also, as with the "strategy guides" approach of the past, DLC will most likely be used to make you pay multiple times to get the whole game, it becomes simple due diligence to make sure DLC (a.k.a. missing parts of the game) will really be available for your platform before you buy.
Oliver.
That is exactly what I thought. Especially when the company is named after a DC suburb.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I don't think that the DLCs will ever be available for PS3. Bethesda seems to have made a deal with MS, so that DLCs are exclusive to XBox and PC. On the PC, however, Bethesda have released modding tools, and the modding community have made more than 5000 mods (take a look here).
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Holding off to buy a game is an Excellent policy. Not only is the "DLC" available at a later date, but so are a lot of the patches.
I can't count how many times (especially recently) that I've felt like a Beta or even an Alpha tester while playing a new title.
I hate to break the bad news to you, but the PS3 is second class in just about every other aspect of the gaming market as well.
I hate to break the bad news to you, but the PS3 is second class in just about every other aspect of the gaming market as well.
Very true considering the Wii is first in most.
I will hold off buying any of their games until I see the DLC available for PS3 first.
I don't really get this. I played Oblivion for about two or three hundred hours without buying the expansion. I've played Fallout 3 for about the same. And I haven't nearly seen everything in either game.
Who needs DLC for these games? Most DLC seems to me completely superfluous.
Also the games drop in price massively, and the hardware required to run them is cheaper. Brilliant for casual gamers like me, who might not be able to invest the time required to even get to needing DLC.
Not that the PS3 ever gets DLC, Microsoft pays off the companies using its monopoly-gained monies to limit it to the 360. I just hope there is a time limit to the DLC platform tie-in.
First off, their decision to not release ps3 DLC is why I didn't pay for the fallout 3 DLC. (I might have still played it, however)
As for DLC in general, I'd rather have a 30 hour expansion in a year rather than load my game up every 6 months to play 6 hours of content. DLC just doesn't add up financially or mathematically.
-SaNo
If I could just pay with my CC, and play with it after an initial activation, I would do it. But the DLC of fallout 3 I had to go through loop and hoop and passport whatever. No thanks.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Agreed. I play Fallout 3 on Windows (via. bootcamp) because someone gave it to me as a gift. Otherwise I wouldn't own it regardless of how good it is. It is also a good enough game that normally I would be recommending it to others and giving copies as gifts to friends and family members on multiple platforms. However, because DLC is unavailable on the PS3 I have done none of those things. Until Bethesda gets out of bed with Microsoft I will not personally purchase any of their products.
The whole game?
The size of the base game is staggering. Go look at the wikia page for locations. There is a ton of stuff to do, places to go etc. About my only complaint is the things to kill are not varied.
I picked up Civ Revolutions. The DLC they have is ok but nowhere near like what you end up getting, fan and professional-made for the PC versions. Sadly, PC remains the king for modding. I think the issue is that the console companies and the publishers on console just don't feel comfortable giving up that level of control.
As I understand it, Oblivion needed the fan tweaks to make it the perfect game it could have been -- plain vanilla as it came from the publisher it was lacking on both PC and console. Unfortunately, you can't install those tweaks on the console. There's no technical reason like back in the day with the PSX, Sony and Microsoft could allow it if they wanted to -- it's obvious that they don't.
Really, I think the whole point of DLC should be about maintaining fan interest between major releases. When it comes to strategy games, version number releases should be five years apart and be built around significant revisions in the graphics engine. Point releases would be balancing and bug fixes with DLC to keep the game fresh and exciting, more scenarios, varying maps, new units, etc. This keeps the game fresh and vibrant until the new version comes out, keeps people interested. If we're talking shooters, the DLC should be new episodes. I don't know how Half-Life fell apart and really don't care since the storylines in HF2 sucked. But if we look at Half-Life 1, that had a great storyline. The expansion packs were less interesting but could have been great. An episodic model should have worked there. Release main game, then start making new episodes that build upon the existing engine and models. In a few more years, release sequel with revamped engine, keep building on the storyline.
I've been a fan of the RPG formula for years while not liking most of the RPG's I've seen. When I really like the storyline in the game, it's fantastic fun to keep playing. When the storyline sucks, why bother? I found Betrayal at Krondor to be engaging. (Yeah, I go way back.) Oblivion had great graphics but a snoozer storyline. Two Worlds had graphics that would have been amazing years ago but had crappy acting, crappy writing, and was a worthless experience.
DLC will have to vary depending on the kind of game. Strategy games typically don't have stories but could have accessories sold out the wazoo, just like pencil and paper games. Story-driven games should be able to keep selling more content so long as they deliver on the storytelling. But we'll likely see all of this gamed for the highest return for least effort.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Here's the guy who's destroying that company. How about you do your job and listen to your customers every now and then? Let's have a look at what your customers are saying about your product:
"If you want to send a message to BethSoft, bellyaching about it will do little. The best way to make them take notice is to vow not to buy any DLC. If they break and don't fix one of the main features advertised for the game, one that is noted prominently as such on the back of the box, why should we buy more of their stuff?"
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=973957
It's pretty clear that Pete's idea of PR is to stonewall and try to shout down critics with more marketing BS. Till this asshole is replaced with someone who can actually do the job, I think that company is going to see a lot more long-term problems.
I don't think it is coming not because Bethesda hates Sony/loves Microsoft but they have serious quality issues. The game by itself had problems on all three platforms. Anchorage was kind of small but The Pitt is supposed to be large and was a little broken when first released. They can't seem to get things stable so the last thing they need to do is sign up for another platform to support.
I don't really get this. I played Oblivion for about two or three hundred hours without buying the expansion. I've played Fallout 3 for about the same. And I haven't nearly seen everything in either game. Who needs DLC for these games? Most DLC seems to me completely superfluous.
As a huge Oblivion player, I have to say that Fallout 3 rocks...but it's does not have as much content as Oblivion, despite being priced the same. There are a lot more quests, characters, and elements of the environment in Oblivion than in Fallout 3...I dunno, maybe 50% more? 100% more? Heck, just look at the books you find...in Oblivion, when you pick one up you can actually read through it. In F3, it's just a Pre-Ruin Book.
I'm just using that as an example...my gut feeling is that where Oblivion had some minor aspects that could still take up a hundred hours of play (e.g., vampirism, with all its related quests, sewers, catching it/ridding it, etc.), F3 either doesn't have subplots like that or elevates them to major plots without more content.
I suspect that in 2005, Bethesda operated under a model of getting as much into the base game in order to impress people. In 2009, the model is more "get as little into the base game as we need, and then we can release more as DLC". Easier on their schedule/budgets and more revenue-friendly.
That's not to say that F3 doesn't have a lot or isn't a great game...it's just that I paid $50 for each (and Oblivion was 3-4 years of inflation earlier) and I got a lot more when I bought Oblivion.
Advice: on VPS providers
Expansion packs don't sell on Live, and MS had completely controlled how we are delivering a supposedly multi-platform experience. Even though open-ended play after the ending is a feature that we promised, it will only be delivered on Microsoft's platforms, with the purchase of DLC. And after you purchase the three pieces of DLC, you will have spent almost as much as you'd spend on two huge expansions, but you'll get far less content.
At least Microsoft is happy, and we're going to pretend that our PS3 customers basically don't exist.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
... but the user interface was horrible and all I got for the trouble was angry. Alot of angry. If you intend to sell DLC, PLEASE use an easy to use system to sell it, not some impossible to navigate, hard to buy fucking MS point shit and that installs more freaking bloat on the computer.
I would actually prefer DLC before extensionpacks, but I will never ever buy anything through the unusable crap that FallOut3 uses.
Contrary to the naysayers here, I think Bethesda has done a great job with DLC. Shivering Isles is bigger than most full $50 games (I am at 120 hours and counting), well worth the price to add more depth even to a ludicrously huge game like Oblivion (over 480 hours for me).
Likewise, when you consider other games Fallout 3 was a bargain when you consider cost, entertainment value, and time. Even more so compared to other mainstream forms of entertainment. If they'd release any of the Fallout3 DLC for the PS3 I'd buy some in a heartbeat, fully expecting them to be worthwhile as well.
501 Not Implemented
I admit that I didn't get fallout 3 because I knew they were holding the DLC back. Then again, I'd happily recommend Bioshock and the ps3 exclusive DLC. In many ways the X-box vs. ps war is only screwing the gamers, on the other hand who wants there to be just one player (unless it's Nintendo ;).
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
Data Link Control - it is an older network protocol.
Shouldn't it be... No wait. Just shut the fuck up.
Get yourself a PC then you can have the DLC...
Dick Loving Cunts!
If Oblivion was 3 to 4 years of inflation earlier you paid MORE for it.
I understand what you are saying, I don't see it that way. There is a lot more random stuff in FO3 (Andale, SatCom nukes, Talon Company base) that doesn't even have a quest associated with it. I see them as comparable though I like Fallout 3 more (one major thing: more damn voice actors), but you are correct that is an opinion.