Slashdot Mirror
When DLC Goes Wrong
kube00 writes "Poorly done downloadable content is one of a gamer's worst nightmares right now. Where a publisher stands to make some money, gamers get screwed. Whether it's the overpriced extra maps/costumes DLC, on-the-disc-at-launch DLC, or DLC that is nothing more than a remake of other content, no game is safe from bad DLC. That includes Modern Warfare 2, Bioshock 2, Uncharted 2 and a host of many other popular games. Is there a chance to fix this system?"
When people realise this, and stop buying DLC.
If I pay for a game, it damn better be a COMPLETE game. But these days, they sell incomplete games now and the missing parts later. DLC is nothing but a scam.
Circumcision is child abuse.
As long as you approach the world with the attitude that it owes you something, there is no chance to fix the system. You will always be disappointed and feel "screwed".
Don't pay for the shit DLC, and Supply and Demand economics will take care of the problem.
... to poorly done content bought on some kind of media. It's always wise to give something a look before buying it, regardless of it being virtual or "real" goods. Unfinished or badly done software has been sold since software is being sold. The only chance to fix this, is that people stop buying such shit.
I get the feeling someone is on the war path with video games lately. At least regarding the story trend and I'm not saying I disagree... just saying.
In any event, the issue isn't even as specific as DLC. Sure, there are plenty of awful examples and I would very much like to point the finger at Halo. Whole sections of multi-player simply disappear if you do not purchase the down-loadable map packs. This isn't even close to misrepresentation, but more like bandits along the highway. At some point, someone thought it would be a really good idea to cripple your current style of play unless you pay a few dollars. I believe someone's soul is headed toward damnation for that one.
Ignoring fire and brimstone, let's get back to the broader and real issue at hand. Bad game or bad content for purchase are not really the issues either. The fact is if we had more honest reviews floating around this would be a no brainer. The truth is we as gamers have been sold out countless times by these fan fiction writers who like to pretend they are writing a game review. In my personal experience, Red Dead Redemption was pretty much the worst multiplayer experience I have had in a while. It however managed to have a lot of good reviews. A more recent example of abuse of a good name is COD Black Ops. This is a good example of how to take something that wasn't terribly and just twist it into a hellish house of mirrors reflecting on a shadow of it's former self.
Having been in the broadcast world for a good while in the past there are important lessons I did learn there. What I happen to like or dislike may not necessarily be in tune with the populace at large. However, I would like to point out that the current early trend with user reviews seem to favor my opinion http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-black-ops?rating_login=1.
I believe what has happened with both retail games and addon pay content is something very simple. It appears to be much easier to simply spend oodles on marketing and advertising rather then produce something original. (Well, original is probably a bad term... how about enjoyable). It cannot be argued these triple a titles have a fairly large budget, but in my horrid and unimportant opinion is that publishers have gone the McDonalds route. Seriously, how else would you sale poison the the people of our great nation.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Is Valve's DLC. Great additions to Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2 and Team Fortress 2, without costing the gamer a cent.
There is a whole range of DLC. Some of it really needs to die. GREAT: Wipeout HD Fury: Doubled the length of the game and added new multiplayer modes for $10. TERRIBLE: Oblivion horse armor. Assassin's Creed 2 sequences that were clearly cut from the game due to time restraints. All overpriced map packs. I really wish people would stop buying this crap so companies would stop making it. While we're talking about DLC, I wish retailer exclusive DLC for pre-ordering would go away.
I bought Fallout 3 when it first came out. Had a blast, but was occupied at the time and didn't buy the DLC. In the intrim the GOTY edition came out, with all the DLC, for $50. Only problem is, the DLC hasn't dropped in price -- and there is $50 of it. Now I can either buy $50 of DLC, or $50 for the GOTY edition. Either way they want me to spend $100 on the game, and I can't justify that. Something is wrong here!
Now I just wait for the GOTY edition to come out.
Valve have the right idea, they don't charge for DLC as they realise that increased exposure and limited-time discounts on the full game actually make them money. You wouldn't catch Valve doing anything depressingly contrived as offering little virtual trinkets for real cash....
Now, if games start having their primary content locked unless you pay for additional DLCs, sure, there's a huge problem. But these other problems? Stop whining. Games are a product with really, really big teams that work long hours to get a game in your hands. Game devs want nothing more than to deliver bigger, better games to you, and DLCs allow them to jumpstart additional content easily, and to respond to market demand efficiently. In addition, game devs can deliver content that was not entirely ready at ship, which would otherwise be cut. Everybody wins with DLCs...unless you demand all that work for free or want less game content overall. You're getting more options in choosing how much you pay for your game content...In any other industry but gaming, consumers would be rejoicing. (And no, it's not some scheme to milk out more money than in the past...There is just literally more work going into making modern games than there was even just a couple years ago, and the trend keeps going up. DLC allows some of the breadth of that content--like, say, additional, optional maps--to be in the game without breaking the bank, period.)
the humanity.
Nor were skins.
The first DLC map was free.
The next two maps were $3.99 for the pair.
The next two maps were in a $9.99 pack with an additional co-op game mode and six skins.
There were two skins packs, each was $6 (IIRC, I didn't buy either of them).
There was also a motion comic pack which came with two skins.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Im a sucker for fighting games, but i'd guess that First Person Shooters are in the same boat. Adding extra characters or maps to a game just doesnt do it justice.
The only game i bought DLC for was WWE SmackDown vs. RAW 2010(?) The pack included a few new wrestlers that were on the current roster but arrived after the cutoff date.There were a few alternate costumes as well. This was sort of a double-edged sword. The developers obviously have to make a cut-off date for when they stop adding content(characters and stories) and the wrestling product is constantly growing and changing. Anyone who has played this game(or its other releases) knows that the character creation mode is quite extensive. With a bit of creativity you can make a character look like anyone and design any moveset you want(lets face it all pro wrestlers use the same strikes and throws.) Is it deliberate that they left these characters out? Probably not. Does the added content significantly change the game to make it anymore interesting? Not so much
I bought the content with an expiring cash card that had just enough for the purchase, so no big loss.
I'd have to think that FPS games are in a similar boat. Once you play the game enough that you could do it on autopilot(been there) does that new map really matter?
I do believe the developers could add more in the way of objectives to a game. Should they hold out on missions from the main story arc? No. It would make sense if they decided to add new side missions though. This would work especially well for sandbox games. In my example above, they could add a few of the more current stories from the wrestling product.
Seriously?
Wasting a couple of dollars? Getting knifed IRL by the n00b you've humiliated online, now that's a nightmare.
Price discrimination is an economics term that means charging different prices to different customers of your product. In real-world situations, you have to vary the product a bit in order to actually carry out such a practice effectively; DLC is one way of introducing such variations.
Freemium websites are another example, close-up versus further-back seats at sporting events and concerts provide another example. Scholarships given by the university itself are another example.
Why do this? Get sales from cheap customers who would otherwise ignore the product, while still being able to collect from the big spenders.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Just give the ability to return the DLC somehow. Then bad DLC will have no chance.
Yes, all of us round here know that it's completely impossible to produce something that's good AND commercially successful.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It seems to me that the most obnoxious, in-your-face form of screwing customers up is when a game is released at the same time (or very close to) the first DLC pack. That's pretty much a statement of "We could have it in the game but we we're charging extra for it instead". In fact, given the track record of the major Game Publishers I suspect that the first DLC pack is in fact content that was purposefully removed from the main release for selling later for extra.
More in general the evilness (or not) of DLC should be determined by looking at two things:
If a DLC pack is essentially a set of bug-fixes, the finishing content for the base-game that should've been part of the main release or tilts the competive space on an online game, then it's Evil DLC and gamers should punish the publisher for that by blacklisting their products.
The same thing also applies to game expansions - even before DLC, some game publishers already screwed customers by releasing game expansions which did all those things described above. Sony Entertainment for example completelly turned me off of buying any Sony product when they released a "game expansion" for Battlefield 2 which was required to fix bugs in the base game and tilted the competitive playing field in favour of those with the expansion (in an Online FPS it added more powerfull weapons for those with the expansion).
Personally I vote with me wallet and will not buy any game with DLC. Maybe I'm missing the one or two games where DLC actually adds real value above that which would've never been added under the normal post-release update cycle but I don't have the time and the patience to find the possible one or two jewels in a pile of broken glass.
It's interesting to see how DLC is detested in computer games. In boardgames, expansions are popular and sell like wildfire, even if they tend to hurt the game experience (the basic game is often sleek and elegant, and expansions add lots of extra crap). But when people love a game, they love to pay to get even more of it. In RPGs it's even worse: a game is considered unsupported if there's not a regular schedule of source books and other stuff prying money out of our wallets. But here, more stuff usually gives the game more viability. The basic rules are nice to get you going, but we want more setting, more adventures, more careers/classes/abilities/spells, etc.
There's no real reason for it. There are lots of excellent games that have a complete and very enjoyable game in a single package, but the big sellers are the ones that keep releasing more and more stuff.
Why wouldn't this work for computer games? A big part of it is of course the way in which the game is released. If the basic game is broken and no fun at all, you'd be crazy to spend money to get more. Releasing an incomplete game and finishing it in DLC is a terrible idea. But releasing a small but fun complete game for a reasonable price, and then selling expansions and more content to those who love it so much they want to get more out of the game, that sounds like a very sensible approach. A company might make the last game you'll ever need, and live from continued support, expansions and new ideas for that game, and of course the new customers that are attracted to such a well-supported game. But yes, it needs to be about honest support, and not merely teasing some extra money out of your customers' wallet.
I think there's also a collector's itch at work with boardgames and RPGs, though. That's probably less the case with computer games, simply because they're not physical products.
With Modern Warfare 2 it gets worse,
you need the DLCs or you won't get matched into a multiplayer game or when you do you get kicked out after a couple levels
DLC! , like mods , only you have to pay for them! One of the things I hate about modern consoles is how they turned the idea of mods and add-dons or games with fun extra content (like the tons of unlockables you used to get in Namco fighting/racing games) into a way of squeezing more money out of gamers. I think a lot of the reason publishers are abandoning the PC is that PC gamers are used to getting this stuff for free (or making it for others and distributing it for free)and it's a lot harder to sell the idea of DLC to them. Still ,thank God Valve are still invested in PC games , at least for now(TF2 and LFD have gotten a shedload of free content since release)...
Not to mention driving the industry in general off a cliff, by giving credence to the concept that products that I can still buy physically in a store are actually services that I can only legally use at the publisher's discretion!
I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
And now all my software is DLC. (But I did buy every single carpack for forza 3 lol)
Is there a chance to fix this system?
Yes. Stop buying that stuff. Amazing how that simple answer is so often overlooked.
I feel that $5 for Babylonia was too much. But it pales in comparison to $50 for a game that continuously crashes in the latter stages of the game.
(This demonstrates the sheer vicious genius of the Firaxis product managers, who decided to release a demo limited to 100 turns - way before the crashes start.)
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
And stop being a whiny little kid.
Also, add slashvertisement to tags, probably some other random person linking to their random blog ranting on about "bad DLC ooo evil companies wanting to make money"
Also, try to get your facts straight for the next rant, some were terribly wrong. (Uncharted 2 very much so)
There is nothing wrong with the DLC system, just a FEW developers who do abuse it.
You can't use the "on a budget" line with gaming! Gaming is a HOBBY, not a necessity! DLC certainly isn't a necessity, it is called EXTRAS for a reason!
Gaming is, and always HAS been an EXPENSIVE hobby. Hell, gaming is cheaper now than it has been for a while. Games used to cost significantly more than this at one point.
Why am i even replying to this? Such a waste of bytes on both ends.
The correct reference point for how long a game should be is "Elite" on the BBC Micro by Braben et al.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
I just wait a year or so for the Gold/Ultimate/GOTY edition of a game which comes with all addons and DLC built-in for £20 or less. Money saved, disaster averted.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Look at what Rockstar has done with Red Dead. First DLC pack is free and adds totally new capabilities to the game.
Now, one might argue this pack has content that should have came with he game in the first place and all it means is the game was rushed...
Well, that explanation does not hold water with the Red Dead Undead pack, because it really is a totally new storyline and side-plot of the game, where you kill freaking zombies. It is also VERY well done and well worth the $10.
I cannot belieeeeeeeeeeeve how quickly gamers fell for DLC. Or maybe I should say, I can't belieeeeeeeve how quickly I have turned into one of those old codgers saying, "back in my day..." - but a lot of the guys I grew up playing games with are now in the DLC trap, so it's not just a case of newbie gamers not knowing any better.
Remember when you'd get a game, and then there'd be a level editor and maybe some mod tools? And then a few weeks after the game was out and you'd played the shit out of it, the first crappy maps would come out? And maybe a proof-of-concept mod?
Then a month or so later, a mate would tell you about this great new map, and you'd fire it up together and play it. Then someone would tell you about some crazy new mod with a funny name like "Team Fortress" or "Counter-Strike" or "Desert Combat" that was a bit hacky, but still really good fun. Then more people would play, and it would grow, and change, and mature, and turn into a solid product all of its own.
All the new school games just don't follow this model. They're cutting out almost any possibility of this process occurring by closing their development environments and charging $5 for every map under the guise of premium DLC, when they could create an ecosystem of nearly unlimited potential that would not only virtually enslave their player base and lead to more sales, but also lead to these entire amazing new brands for them to cash in on.
Team Fortress started as a free mod and turned into TF2 (with a very long lead time), one of Valve's most successful brands now. Counter-strike is still ludicrously popular. Desert Combat (mod for BF1942) evolved into Battlefield 2. Red Orchestra turned into a successful standalone game.
Sure, not every mod turns into a huge amazing thing, but if you create a remotely decent game with well-thought out multiplayer and throw in decent development tools, you can STILL create premium DLC and sell it to users, but you'll also get vast amounts of free content for your game. And as long as you have a vaguely decent management system for your online CD keys, pretty much each game will be a sale.
GET OFF MY LAWN
I bought a map pack so I could play more levels of multiplayer horde online. As soon as a new map pack became available I couldn't play these maps online any longer because in order to play extra levels online you need to have them all. Otherwise you're limited to the default maps. Shit like this ought to be illegal.
I have yet to actually purchase DLC directly, and I have no plans to change that in the future. The only game in my inventory that includes DLC content is Oblivion, and only because the DLC came bundled with the deluxe package of the game. I refuse to buy "fluff" add-ons (horse armor, are you fsck-ing kidding me?) and games that are shipped incomplete with DLC required to be able to finish the game are off my buy list automatically.
I, for one, want the publishers and developers focusing on delivering quality games, at release, without show-stopping bugs. I'm getting tired of reading reviews of new games being launched without proper QA. In my opinion, if DLC is part of the release plan for a game it means the developers are going to focus on the DLC content after launch, not fixing bugs that slipped through QA. I don't have a problem with very minor bugs slipping through, because as someone who works in software development I know that commercial software will never be completely bug-free. But they better not release the game before it's "done". Far too many recent games seem to be rushed out the door to meet an artificial deadline. Please, if your game is not ready, don't ship it. Developers, don't let publishers force you to release an unfinished game.
Sadly, I do not see this changing for the better.
It took me a minute to figure out for what DLC stands. Obviously not a gamer.
Just thought I'd let you know luddites like me still existed. ;-)
I recall downloading official map packs for the original Unreal Tournament which gave us a new game mode and something along the lines of 10-12 maps total... for free. Epic came out with a few packs spread out over about 2 years after the game was released I think.
Free ride's over I guess... it's too bad but if I pay 60$ for a game, I'm not spending another 20$ in DLC for things that make my game prettier. Charge me 20$ for an add on episode, then yeah, that's fine (assuming of course that the original game lasted for more than 8 hours).
~Syberz
Ummm...
The publishers have a legally enforced monopoly, what the heck makes you think that the rules of supply and demand apply here. After you satisfactorily explain that one you can explain how supply and demand works where supply is for all intents and purposes infinite because the product is infinitely replicable for negligible costs.
Australia has been trying to get game prices down to US/Euro levels for years, supply and demand hasn't done a damned thing, we are still paying US$90+ per game. Even making parallel importing legal hasn't affected it, they've just introduced region locking wherever possible.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
DLC goes wrong when it exists.
I'll pay for an expansion pack to add content to a good game, I won't pay to unlock existing in-game content, and I won't pay to add content to a shitty game that should have had it in the first place, so don't try that either, game publishers.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The article forgot to mention that some DLC (Dargon Age) is very good. I love the attention bioware gave to Dragon Age. i have enjoyed the adventures. I also like what the Sims 3 has done. I think the prices are reasonable for both as well. The games listed in the article don't surprise me. These aren't games I usually buy because of so many issues plaguing them. I guess my issue here is that the article focuses on the wrong issue. DLC is a great idea, some really bad companies don't know how to handle it. Big game companies are now like hollywood they just don't get it.
It's "she", Fawkes is female.
This is a terrible article, it's poorly written, one sided, and seems to be based on the personal preferences of the writer.
Couldn't we find a better discussion of game DLC than this?
still no sig
Couldn't we just implement a cross-platform ratings system along with a 'discontinue' option? There are some bits of DLC I would really like to actually get, say, half my money back on and not have access to it anymore as it's just that crap and I never use it.
All the best dreams are unachievable.
I didn't like the idea of paying two times the cost of a normal full game to get all the parts, not to mention having to wait weeks/months in between each portion of the game.
Let me guess: You didn't see Star Wars IV-VI, Star Wars I-III, The Lord of the Rings, or The Matrix trilogy.
DLC is software's version of "(non)value add".
This has been in existence ever since the first car dealership thought up undercoating, ever since mcdonalds realized it could sell you a toy car or a carton of pies with your hamburger. Basically, as long as commerce has existed, there's been the concept of accessories, addons, or in this case, "downloadable content".
DLC, much like any other addon, falls into one of two categories:
1) Crap
2) Not crap
Obviously, if the DLC is crap, no one buys it, and we move on all the happier. You really don't need that trucoat, it turns out.
It seems that most people have a problem with the "legit" DLC. Everyone would love that sweet new song pack, that awesome new armor, the goggles that yes, in fact, do something. So why are these bastard companies screwing us over? By golly, we want our new content and we want it for free! Obviously the solution is simple. Make all the crap DLC cost something, and no one will buy it. Make all the awesome, totally radical DLC free and/or baked into the core product, and everyone is happy!
This seems to be the sentiment of every DLC complainer. The truth of the matter though is, one gamer's trash is another gamer's treasure. It's far more economical to the developers, and really, the gamers too, to sell a "watered down" core product at $40 and tack on a bunch of $5-10 packs that give you specific content. I spent $50 on rock band, that was great. I spent another $8-12 on a few more songs from bands that I really, really, really liked.
If you took all the DLC out there for rock band (Which in this case is effing impossible, as there are TONS of song packs now), you'd be looking at a $200 product, and then EVERYONE who buys the core product is stuck with the the "Harmonica Hero Song Pack 4 Collection", which I'm sure EVERY consumer is interested in.
Yes, some companies like to gouge stupid customers, and some customers are stupid enough to pay $20 for a different coloured cape. At the end of the day - I say let them. People went crazy when blizzard started selling $25 mounts - almost 2 entire months of game time worth of cost for what amounted to recoloured pixels of existing models. People lost their shit. Really - who cares? Is it effecting you if 10, 20, 100,000 other people want to fork over money for silly rewards? Let them have it. At the end of the day, almost all of the games we play are equally silly. If you enjoy something and want to pay for it, then do it. If you don't, don't.
I read multi part novels. Only when I have all the books available to read.
Some book series on this list are still growing; I guess they're off limits to you. For example, to follow your rule strictly, you'd have to have not started reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone until Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows had been first published.
This is very akin to asking, "How can we get developers to stop making bad games?" I know I tend to think of DLC as "not being a game" so if I buy it and don't like it, I'm only $10 out--but that starts to add up. So I read reviews--really, DLC should be considered buying a full-fledged game in many cases. Gamespot and IGN both have DLC reviews, and I'm sure there are hundreds of sites out there that offer a similar service.
So read the reviews before buying DLC! I know that saved me from several bad purchases in the past... and the few $10 DLCs that I skipped can add up fast!
Problem solved.
Team Fortress from Valve is what I see as the gold standard for DLC. The game updates significantly and frequently through Steam, adding features and fun without an iota of effort (or money!) on the part of the player. The Orange Box was the first digital game I bought, and it's one of the few that I've played regularly for over a year.
Valve's made me into a loyal customer with that single purchase. How could a property like Call of Duty benefit if they were to do something similar? Would it torpedo their scattergun title release business plan, or would more people (like me) actually consider buying another one if they knew the game would age like whiskey?
If a game is slated to have DLC, I usually wait for a GoTY edition to come out. If I think the DLC is worth it, I buy the GoTY edition, and if not, I buy the discounted regular version. I don't buy it online because I don't want to be stuck later on missing the DLC, as I'm sure in 5 or 10 years something will go wrong with my machine and I won't be able to have it repaired. This way, I can play it fine on an emulator or buy a replacement machine and still be able to enjoy the DLC if I found it was worth it in the first place.
After playing for two days, I reached a stage where the game asked me if I wanted to purchase DLC. This was puzzling as I'd paid through Steam for the Digital edition which supposedly came with the DLC already.
After signing up to Steam and EA's support pages, I found that even though Steam entered the game code for you, the DLC code had to be entered seperately, despite not telling me this anywhere.
I complained to Steam, they said it was nothing to do with them - so I asked for a refund, as the experience had soured my taste for the game. Steam said no, I'd already played it for two days and was therefore ineligible. I reminded them that by UK law, I can return anything defective to the seller *or* the manufacturer - it's my choice by law. Steam replied that they weren't in the UK.
I never played the game again - in fact, I think I've paid for two games out of the dozen or so I've played since. But hey, I'm doing this because I'm a nasty pirate, not because I refuse to be ripped off again, right?
While there are many valid complaints about DLC out there, there is one major misconception that does get perpetuated rather unfairly, and that is of Day 1 DLC. The perception is that this was content that was deliberately withheld from the disk to be charged at a premium as a way to bilk consumers. While I can't speak for all companies' strategies I can say that in general this is simply untrue, and more a product of the nature of console development nowadays.
When a game goes into Cert for first party consoles, i.e. the game is complete, nothing else is to be added to the disk so that Nintendo, Sony, and MS can test the disk for compliance to be published on their systems, you're looking at a 4 to 6 month period between the disk entering Cert, going Gold, and then going to disk pressing and distribution and then actually hitting store shelves where nothing new is or ever will be added to the disk (except for major bug fixes found in the cert process). But this is still 6 months where you have developers on staff with all the tools and expertise of development still fresh and ready to go. So unless you've already scheduled the next product cycle (which you shouldn't while the game is still in Cert in case issues arise), you've got plenty of resources you can dedicate to turning around day one patches and DLC. Cert process for DLC is usually much shorter, because it's all building off the engine that was already tested on the disk, and since there's no manufacturing or distribution lead time, you can usually have some pretty high-quality DLC available in pretty short time alongside your disk's actual launch.
Day 1 patches also get a lot of flak, but are often a much more preferable solution (from the developer and publisher's perspective) for fixing issues that are turned up in cert that don't require you to restart the cert process and potentially delay your game's launch. It screws over the users who aren't online, but in today's console environment, that's such a non-vocal and shrinking minority of users that almost no one in the industry is any financial trouble for not going out of their way to cater to them (actually usually the opposite).
Not that a lot of Day 1 DLC (or DLC in general) isn't still not worthwhile, but the idea that it was content the devs were sitting on and decided to exclude to screw over the customers just doesn't jive with reality. No matter how much content may be included on a disk that may or may not have been relegated to DLC, there is always a huge chunk of time between the disk being locked and the disk hitting shelves where the devs can work on new material that may be ready in time for launch.
'An example of decisions being made that will cause customers to get a crappy deal with DLC is with recent release of Rock Band 3.
Now that they've added a new instrument (keyboards) and support 2 and 3 part harmony on vocals to songs, some previously released DLC songs are slowly being remade and released with the new track data. Those who buy the track for the first time will pay $1.99 (which I think is also overpriced for reasons I won't get into here).
Now, if you have already bought the original track for $1.99 before keyboards were added, even if you just purchased it a few weeks ago before knowing it would be replaced with a better version, you are out of luck. If you want full instrumentation an additional $1.99.
It's almost like having an early adopter tax where in the long run they get to pay twice as much for their DLC.
Supposedly it has to do with license restrictions on the music, but at the same time it really shafts the customers who purchased many tracks already and have to repurchase the exact same songs in order to get full benefit. I think many would find it easier to swallow if even a discounted purchase of the updated track was available.
TFA seems to think that most of the DLC that's included for "Free" with newer titles (i.e. everything from Bioware now, Red Dead Redemption, etc) is sort of an "Oh, we got this done after we had to go gold" afterthought deal.
No, it's there because you have to make an account and tie your name and credit/debit card to your game to get it. If for example you buy Mass Effect 2 and register on Bioware's HORRIBLE community website (also they commit the xbox live sin of using nebulous points as currency) to get the "Cerberus Pack" which includes a character (Zaheed) and a set of armor, if you go to sell your copy or trade it in you need to give up that name and password with it otherwise the person who buys the game used will have to create their own account and pay $7-10 for the DLC you got for "free".
DLC isn't loved by game companies just because they can nickel and dime you for shit that should've been in the original package, but it's also a way to pry money out of the pockets of people who buy games from the used market they despise so much.
In Fable III you can use dyes to color your hair and clothing how you please, except that in the release version (on the disc) there are four very obvious empty spots on your dye rack. You can now pay 80 MSpoints to purchase - surprise surprise - four more bottles of dye to fill those spots. They aren't very good colors though, just hot pink, turquoise, cream... and oh yeah, BLACK. The one color they knew everyone wanted, the one color they figured they could sell separately no matter how obvious it was that they cut it out just to nickel and dime the players. What, do they expect us to believe black dye wasn't done in time for launch, or that they came up with the idea after the game went gold? It's an insult. Worse than the "horse armor."
The article dances around it a bit doesn't get to the hard of the matter... perceived value.
If a game maker sells a game for $60 that feels incomplete to it's fans, and new DLC is available the moment it goes on sale and that DLC is $10... then fans are probably going to feel cheated and scream very loudly.
On the other hand, if the game maker sells a game for $50 that's well thought out and feels complete, and new DLC is available 3 months after it goes on sale for $2 and really enhances the game but is not "required" to enjoy the game, the biggest fans might feel encouraged to buy it.
The truth is most DLC is somewhere in between. The problem with DLC is that it's current incarnation was thought up by a business person trying to make money, not a programmer trying to make a great game. Sure, DLC is a good way to get people to continue to be interested in the game and create a revenue stream so that you can pay programmers to expand the game further. It's also a great way to take advantage of rabid fanboys and girls who download everything without thinking, only to find that most of it is crap or not worth what they spent. Sure, a fool and his money are soon parted, but if the content truly isn't worth it, the gamers will remember and not buy it the second time and your revenue stream dries up fast. Somewhere, some suit is trying to complain and justify that the stuff his company makes should be paid for at what he thinks it should cost, rather than trying to find out what it would be worth to the gamer and find a balance between how much work it takes vs how much the gamer is willing to pay for it. These bad modules are probably the former.
There is a fine line between providing the customer value and ripping them off. Some businesses don't try hard enough to figure out where that line is before they put their products out there. Gaming companies are notorious for this.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
While I feel for those whose otherwise great games get broken by having parts of or close to the main storyline cut out and charged extra for, there is also an upside to this. The more the main publishing houses go this route, the more attractive alternative games become by comparison.
There are several games out there that have interesting ideas in them, but can't compete with the mainstream titles' multimedia splendor. If the DLC SNAFU brings more success to these alternative games, I'll count that as a plus. Heck, we may even get more good open source games.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
As badly as I want to get a hold of it, I would bet my bottom dollar they have it constructed to be a money pit of already-on-the-disc or just utter garbage DLC. I can smell the money factory firing up as we speak.
If this is one a gamer's worst nightmares, they need to get out more.
I'll clarify my point: each AAA game that gets released tends to have been (re)written at least twice. There's no need for that to happen, other than poor management of the process.
Can you recommend a book on how to manage a video game project?
code is written before requirements
Defenders of this process would argue that code is written to show which requirements are feasible and which are desirable. This is called a "tech demo".
content is produced before it's clear whether it's needed, or suitable
This is by no means limited to games. Production of works in any medium leaves something on the cutting room floor.
I don't know where all this DLC hubbub is coming from, but I see it posted everywhere. It is a meme propagated by self-entitled moochers without any sense of history. Nobody is forcing you to buy DLC, if you don't think a game or DLC is worth the money, don't buy it. Simple.
I can think back through gaming history, buying Ultimate Doom; an expansion which would create furor in today's climate. I also bought Quake and QuakeII expansions. Even going back to the 80s where games like Mercenary had the Second City expansion.
Thinking about it, I can see a parallel in the recording industry where we would buy LPs, with select songs being sold as singles often with good B-side tunes. Should the B-side tunes be given away free to those who purchased the LP?
POKE 36879,8
Nothing peculiar about this, similar trends occur in many other industries. Simply read an online review of the DLC, maybe ask a few friends, end of story. Smart shopping.