Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Some Players Want Day-1 DLC, Says BioWare

Posted by Soulskill on from the just-not-the-ones-who-whine-on-the-internet dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Speaking at GDC Europe this week, BioWare Montreal's Fernando Melo spoke about how the oft-disparaged first-day downloadable content for video games is actually something a significant amount of players want. 'Melo argued that on the occasions when BioWare hasn't provided DLC from day one, those players who complete the game quickly then complained that there was nothing more to play and asked for extra content. If DLC isn't provided for these players, they may well move on to a different game and never come back to play DLC later on. As proof that day one DLC also works in terms of sales, Melo said that 53 percent of all sales for the first Dragon Age: Origins DLC pack — which was released on the same day as the full game — were made on release day."

10 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. Are you serious? by NettiWelho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They want the frigging Day-1 DLC because the content currently in Day-1 DLC was supposed to be in Day-0 product.

    1. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed.

      What this shows is that the serving size of the base game was simply too small.

      And that some people would rather order additional sides than go to a different restaurant with larger mains...

    2. Re:Are you serious? by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know about consoles, but in PC games this is called a patch. If there is still work to be done in the 30-60 days before release that can't be included in the main release, you release it as a patch on day 1. What is the difference between dlc and a patch you ask? Easy, dlc is a patch that costs money. Support companies like tripwire interactive. Their game Red Orchestra patched in 3 separate content expansions over the game's lifetime, and users weren't charged a cent. These expansions contained new maps, vehicles, skins, weapons, just about a complete new version of the game. Tripwire is also just an example, there are many companies that continue to support and reward their customers for the initial purchase. Bioware used to be good. New bioware can suck my dick, and if they are very very good at it they might get some liquid dlc.

    3. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because there's a certification process required by the platform owner to ensure baseline quality. During that process only bug fixes go into the product. Once approved for physical media, there's manufacturing and logistics to get the game in the stores, etc. that also adds significant delay.

      Bottom line is, for a AAA game, there's a good 2 months at the very least before launch when nothing much goes on with the game. DLC is worked on in that period, and if it doesn't hit the mark and needs 2-3 weeks more, it's not a big deal. Risk management.

      I'm a game developper and I know people like to rag on DLC and how it's bad and mean (But 20$ expansion packs were totally cool back in the day, go figure), but it's extra content. Yes, there's on-disc DLC (most often tied into promotion with different stores) and stuff like that. Yes there are DLC packages that are a total rip-off. But it's just a delivery method...

    4. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NO, it doesn't feel like extra content! People felt expansion packs were totally cool cause THEY _ARE_ TOTALLY COOL. Day 1 and Month 1 DLCs feel like aspects that were planned for the game and then taken out during the meeting with marketing & sales, or budgeting. DLC should NOT feel like the missing parts of a game. What were "expansion packs" of yesterday feel like the of sequels today, and yes, they are still cool. DLC feels like crap.

    5. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NO, it doesn't feel like extra content! People felt expansion packs were totally cool cause THEY _ARE_ TOTALLY COOL. Day 1 and Month 1 DLCs feel like aspects that were planned for the game and then taken out during the meeting with marketing & sales, or budgeting. DLC should NOT feel like the missing parts of a game. What were "expansion packs" of yesterday feel like the of sequels today, and yes, they are still cool. DLC feels like crap.

      This person hits in on the head. In the old days expansion packs were more like sequels (or intermediate episodes until the actual sequel), they always took place after the game.

      DLCs on the other hand tend to be content that didn't make it into the game, this is apparent in that they are usually set inside the timeline of the game rather than after it. It's really obvious when the game refers to the DLC content, making it apparent that it was cut out (or deliberately held behind). Fallout: New Vegas is a good example of this with the Lonesome Road DLC, right from the first hour of the game NPCs are already referencing it. Also unlike Fallout 3 which had DLCs retcon their entrances into the game world where they didn't exist before (entire buildings popping out of nowhere) in New Vegas the entrances to the DLC locations are not only already in the game world but even have quick-travel points on the map.

      The developers of Fallout: New Vegas admitted that the game needed another several months to truly be finished, just about everything in the DLCs was meant to be in the game itself (and would have been much better integrated into it) and even the game world map has huge areas that you never visit (that empty space to the West is where The Divide is located). However the publishers would much rather put those parts into DLCs so they can charge more for it, then later release a new edition of the game with all the DLCs included (and the price jacked up to cover it).

    6. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Back in the day" you didn't have voice acting, 1080p graphics, online play, etc. etc. etc.
      You can't expect production values and features to go up and up and up while prices stay the same..

      The fuck?

      I've played plenty of games in the late 90s and early 00s that were fully voice acted and had LAN if not online play. Hell, fucking Command and Conquer 95 (which came out in 1995) had fully acted FMVs with actors and sound stages. Jesus Christ. Ever played Half-Life (the first one), that was 1998. You're full of crap.

      The problem has nothing to do with production costs, it's the business model that's changed. The gaming industry used to be made up of people who loved games and wanted to make a reasonable profit producing new awesome ones. It's now made of suits that treat their product as a line item in a spreadsheet and a check-list, there's no drive for quality or fair dealing; very few people want to make a good game nowadays, they just want to make McDonalds — something that achieves maximum revenue with a minimum of investment or artistic integrity.

      "DLC feels like crap."
      So don't buy it?
      And if the main game isn't worth the money, don't buy that either.

      Can you teach me how to see into the future as well? I don't see how else I can avoid paying for a non-refundable product that sucks even though I can't know that it sucks before I paid for it.

  2. DLC? really? by tulmad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or you could, I dunno, release the whole fucking game all at once.

    --
    "In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
  3. Re:Well fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, and if your game takes me only a day to complete I doubt I'm going to bother to pay for your DLC.

  4. Re:Well fuck. by poity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, who are these people who finish an RPG in 1 day? Do they pay for a hooker and finish in 2 minutes? Do they order a fine steak and drink it out of a blender? What the world?

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll