The Gaming Industry Needs To Stop Bleeding Players Through Endless DLC

[Tuna]

lol. imagine if movies did this!.. It has to be done by a certain date.. Crap, we're not gonna make it.. That's ok.. we'll put it out anyways and have a DLC movie later!

[JudgeDredd]

Point is though, DLC generally enhances the game by adding playability (maps, factions, gameplay modes, etc etc, etc).

I haven't come across a game before where the ending has left me thinking "Huh?". The game has always played "to it's conclusion" and anything added after takes (for example "your team") to a different area and a different set of missions.

Other DLC (MP maps, MP gameplay modes and things like skins, sprites etc) don't interest me and as such I'm kind of thankful that games prices aren't inflated in order to accommodate such things

[joram]

I think I get it from a business point of view but from a consumer's point of view, I generally don't care for it.  The battleground example was a meaningful one for me as I bounced off that one hard.  Because of that experience (and others) I definitely think about the future dlc costs and features before I buy.   For this reason there are very few AAA titles I buy immediately anymore and even the hint of DOC "expansions" is now just a euphemism for being feature incomplete for me.  I only recently got Stellaris and still haven't got CIV6 even though it's one of my all time favorite series.
There was a time when I would feel like I would be missing out but as life goes on I realized that there are more important things than anticipating DLC.

[Gusington]

Aren't sequels and prequels the movie equivalent of DLC?

[OJsDad]

I think a lot of Devs would like to do this, but the reality of business means they can't. Sometimes, a game HAS to ship by a certain date. Devs typically make the game they think they can make in the time-frame they're given. New ideas that they have a long the way get incorporated if possible, but more likely than not go on the 'DLC' shelf to be looked at after launch. It's not that they're shipping an in-complete game, they're shipping 'Version 1.0'. That's all they've really committed to anyway, and the new digital era means that developing decent 'Version 2, 3," etc... is actually possible where-as before it wasn't.

What this tells me, is that the Devs haven't thought out what they want to do, they just start building a game and through mud at the wall to see what sticks.  Then, after a lot of hype and sales, hopefully we don't get killed with player reviews, and can then follow on with DLC. 

Early Access actually provides some interesting lessons here because there you have a environment where there's not pressure to release by a certain time. Games in EA change end evolve constantly because developers try to incorporate whatever new idea that comes into their head, and the result is games that either stay too long in EA, or have hitherto remained in Early Access and show no signs of leaving.

The only game I've purchased as early access is 7 Days to Die.  Bought in Christmas of 2015.  Thee have been 3 major updates since then.  Between myself and my son playing, we have over 460 hours. 

I'm not saying one is better than the other.  As Gus pointed out, there's not a blanket answer. 

[joram]

Aren't sequels and prequels the movie equivalent of DLC?

I don't go to movies much these days either but that's a fair point!  I am ok with it as long as each movie is a complete self contained story.  While I don't mind teasers of more to come, I can't stand spending twoish hours and then it letting me hang.  I think Matrix 2 was especially egregious here but I'm sure there are more examples.  Applied to books too.  I have dropped series by good authors like David Weber or Bernard Cromwell because it got to a point that they were obviously just extending the life of the series rather than concentrating on telling a story.   
Analogizing to computer games,  I feel that a lot of DLC is because the developer purposely left something out for the sole intent of charging you more for it later.  That is, it's not a complete story yet.   Not all do that of course, maybe even just a few but the few ruin it for most.   So I accept DLC is the way it is so I just factor that into the total cost and wait till the majority of DLC is available at the right price point so I can get the game as it was intended to be at prices that are not inflated.

PS sorry for the wall of text, I am typing this from my phone.

[OJsDad]

On the movie issue, I would just say it depends.  If I know going in that there were be 2 or 3  movies to tell the whole story, than I'm good with that.  Same with books, if I know a book isn't a stand alone and part of a series, then again, I'm good with that. 

The problem with game though, you don't know when it will all end. 

[Steelgrave]

I imagine there are often extras the dev team might like to put into a game the first time out, but budgetary considerations, deadlines and all the myriad other factors involved in production can force some hard choices to be made. This is different from putting out a less than complete game, which is more what the author of the piece is implying. Since the comparison to movies has been brought up, how often do we see a Director's Cut released before a movie is a success? A three hour Alien movie out the gate would have meant less theater showings a day and therefore made it a riskier proposition for making money. Since it became a classic and a moneymaker, the demand for a Director's Cut (and sequels) exploded.

I think most game developers are excited about what they are working on and see all kinds of potential chrome, but the business end of the equation involves making money to pay for all that, so like movies, some things end up on the cutting room floor. Only in this case the "cutting room floor" is more like "if the game is a success, maybe we can do this or that down the road". It's why there are business people and there are artists.....artists in whatever format live to do art. Business people are there to keep the lights on and ensure money for future endeavors. If a game is a success, DLC's and sequels are logical follow ups. If the game is deliberately incomplete, paid DLC's will bite the developers in the ass. I think most gaming companies, at least those we Grogs support, fall into the good category and DLC's are more icing on a cake.

[Gusington]

You ate your Brain Wheaties this morning.

[RyanE]

Aren't sequels and prequels the movie equivalent of DLC?

Exactly...and the lack of creativity.

[-budd-]

You ate your Brain Wheaties this morning.

Agree with that

I imagine there are often extras the dev team might like to put into a game the first time out, but budgetary considerations, deadlines and all the myriad other factors involved in production can force some hard choices to be made. This is different from putting out a less than complete game, which is more what the author of the piece is implying. Since the comparison to movies has been brought up, how often do we see a Director's Cut released before a movie is a success? A three hour Alien movie out the gate would have meant less theater showings a day and therefore made it a riskier proposition for making money. Since it became a classic and a moneymaker, the demand for a Director's Cut (and sequels) exploded.

I think most game developers are excited about what they are working on and see all kinds of potential chrome, but the business end of the equation involves making money to pay for all that, so like movies, some things end up on the cutting room floor. Only in this case the "cutting room floor" is more like "if the game is a success, maybe we can do this or that down the road". It's why there are business people and their are artists.....artists in whatever format live to do art. Business people are there to keep the lights on and ensure money for future endeavors. If a game is a success, DLC's and sequels are logical follow ups. If the game is deliberately incomplete, paid DLC's will bite the developers in the ass. I think most gaming companies, at least those we Grogs support, fall into the good category here and DLC's are more icing on a cake.

A pretty damn good explanation. I do have to wonder sometimes about a companies motives when the DLC is a few weeks later.

[PipFromSlitherine]

You ate your Brain Wheaties this morning.

Agree with that

I imagine there are often extras the dev team might like to put into a game the first time out, but budgetary considerations, deadlines and all the myriad other factors involved in production can force some hard choices to be made. This is different from putting out a less than complete game, which is more what the author of the piece is implying. Since the comparison to movies has been brought up, how often do we see a Director's Cut released before a movie is a success? A three hour Alien movie out the gate would have meant less theater showings a day and therefore made it a riskier proposition for making money. Since it became a classic and a moneymaker, the demand for a Director's Cut (and sequels) exploded.

I think most game developers are excited about what they are working on and see all kinds of potential chrome, but the business end of the equation involves making money to pay for all that, so like movies, some things end up on the cutting room floor. Only in this case the "cutting room floor" is more like "if the game is a success, maybe we can do this or that down the road". It's why there are business people and their are artists.....artists in whatever format live to do art. Business people are there to keep the lights on and ensure money for future endeavors. If a game is a success, DLC's and sequels are logical follow ups. If the game is deliberately incomplete, paid DLC's will bite the developers in the ass. I think most gaming companies, at least those we Grogs support, fall into the good category here and DLC's are more icing on a cake.

A pretty damn good explanation. I do have to wonder sometimes about a companies motives when the DLC is a few weeks later.

Most games are *content* complete many months before release.  So your asset creation team can start DLC then, allowing it release soon after release when you have the highest number of engaged players.  Nothing is left out of the core release for this to happen.

Cheers

Pip

[-budd-]

You ate your Brain Wheaties this morning.

Agree with that

I imagine there are often extras the dev team might like to put into a game the first time out, but budgetary considerations, deadlines and all the myriad other factors involved in production can force some hard choices to be made. This is different from putting out a less than complete game, which is more what the author of the piece is implying. Since the comparison to movies has been brought up, how often do we see a Director's Cut released before a movie is a success? A three hour Alien movie out the gate would have meant less theater showings a day and therefore made it a riskier proposition for making money. Since it became a classic and a moneymaker, the demand for a Director's Cut (and sequels) exploded.

I think most game developers are excited about what they are working on and see all kinds of potential chrome, but the business end of the equation involves making money to pay for all that, so like movies, some things end up on the cutting room floor. Only in this case the "cutting room floor" is more like "if the game is a success, maybe we can do this or that down the road". It's why there are business people and their are artists.....artists in whatever format live to do art. Business people are there to keep the lights on and ensure money for future endeavors. If a game is a success, DLC's and sequels are logical follow ups. If the game is deliberately incomplete, paid DLC's will bite the developers in the ass. I think most gaming companies, at least those we Grogs support, fall into the good category here and DLC's are more icing on a cake.

A pretty damn good explanation. I do have to wonder sometimes about a companies motives when the DLC is a few weeks later.

Most games are *content* complete many months before release.  So your asset creation team can start DLC then, allowing it release soon after release when you have the highest number of engaged players.  Nothing is left out of the core release for this to happen.

Cheers

Pip

It just looks that way then but i imagine there's a road map of sorts before the content complete stage about follow on DLC. How is it decided whats main game and whats DLC? I imagine if its a game your not sure will hit its a tough decision to start asset creation with those borderline titles.

As a side note Pip anything in the coming soon section coming soon? Just got my coupon and have 30 days to use it. Bought just about everything i want already so hoping something new is coming out in the next month...inquiring minds want to know and yes this is a strictly selfish question......THANKS FOR THE COUPON BY THE WAY O0

[Phantom]

I get all my games at a huge discount, using a method I call "waiting".
Games are like wine, they get better with age (ie: they're fixed) but unlike wine, they also get cheaper.
This also makes sense for the producer, as I'm buying a game I wouldn't touch with a bargepole at full price - win/win, just hang on guys!

[Tuna]

I get all my games at a huge discount, using a method I call "waiting".
Games are like wine, they get better with age (ie: they're fixed) but unlike wine, they also get cheaper.
This also makes sense for the producer, as I'm buying a game I wouldn't touch with a bargepole at full price - win/win, just hang on guys!

I've always agreed with that, I mean how many of us have tons of stuff in our library that we would NEVER have bought at full prices. But couldn't resist during a Steam Sale or the like. The developer has sold software that we didn't even 'really want'. I've got plenty of un-played titles.