http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/15/gaming-industry-needs-stop-bleeding-players-endless-dlc/
QuoteOver the last few days, the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles has seen video game developers showcase upcoming offerings with flashy press conferences, movie-like trailers, and gimmicks on wheels and in the air. We could talk about many, many new games, both big and small, but on a broader scope something evolving in the gaming industry is concerning: games as a service.
When I was a kid growing up in the 1980s and '90s, video games were about big machines you played at an arcade or on your basic home system from Nintendo, Sega, or Atari. Then gaming went big-time. It exploded on PCs, as people built ever more powerful and expensive rigs to run the latest and greatest of games. Consoles also evolved into a landscape dominated by Microsoft's Xbox and Sony's PlayStation.
We're now on the PS4 Pro, and after this weekend the Xbox One X (which costs a whopping $500). Consoles now not only run 4K ultra-high-definition games, but also carry Netflix, web browsers, and most importantly online stores. No longer do you need to go to GameStop, BestBuy, or Walmart to buy video games. You can get them online through websites like Amazon or services from Microsoft and Sony. Oh, and just because you bought the game, doesn't mean you get the whole game. Let me explain.
That $70 Was Just an Entry Fee
"Star Wars: Battlefront" came out in 2015 in conjunction with the launch of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," I pre-ordered the game, cleared my schedule, and sat down in the dark of my office to blast away at Stormtroopers for hours on end. The problem was, it wasn't much of a game. There was no real single-player campaign, and the game itself was light on content. The nearly $70 I spent on the game seemed like a rip-off. I could go online and fight other players, but that was pretty much it.
That wasn't the end of the game, however. After spending that high price tag for the base game, its developers wanted me to spend more, and more, and more, on DLC (downloadable content). Want to wield the wily Lando Calrissian? Pay up. Want to play new missions at the Death Star? Pay up. Want to play as characters from "Rogue One"? Pay up. By the time the game is "done" it costs much more than the initial $70. When you're spending $50, $60, $70 or more on a game, shouldn't you get a fully finished product? I think so, but the gaming industry disagrees.
The hottest trend in gaming is "games as a service." When I first bought "Legend of Zelda" in 1987, I got the game. It was all of the game, polished, and ready to roll. The $40 you paid then got you one of the greatest games of all time, in all its glory. For the record, I still have my original Nintendo and occasionally bust out some old-school "Zelda," especially to show my kids. Pay once, play forever.
That's just not the case anymore. Instead of having you pay for a game once, developers want you to come back again and again to continue a revenue stream for them.
It's a slot machine. You buy your way into the casino with an expensive bucket of quarters. There you go, you've got the game. Then, to really enjoy it, to get the full game experience, you have to keep putting in more quarters, pulling that lever, and spending in the game you already purchased.
All of a sudden that initial $70 has swelled well north of $100. For that $100 you finally get the game you deserved for $70. Your game is now free of bugs, has more content and adventures, and is what it should have been at launch.
This is the big boy version of those "free-to-play" games on your phone. Sure, you can download that puzzle game for free or just 99 cents, but if you want to get past level 15 or complete a task faster than the speed of sap, get ready to fork over $4.99, $9.99, $19.99, $49.99, or even more! All of this nickel and diming takes the fun out of gaming. I just want to buy a game and play it.
They Definitely Learned This from Microsoft
This has been a common practice in the business world for a while. Many applications that multi-national companies rely upon function as a service. You pay up front, then on a subscription basis to get support, updates, and new features. Game developers saw this, and thought, "JACKPOT!" Why have players pay once for a game when companies can hook players into paying for multiple series of future content as well? The casino was in business!
Another part of the appeal of these "games as a service" is the social nature. If you turn on your TV (especially in Asia) you can amazingly find video game competitions in which millions of dollars are at stake. Kids who grew up in their basements glued to a screen can now earn a solid six figures tapping buttons and moving a joystick in front of an arena full of screaming fans. This, along with the ability to stream gameplay online, has made gaming more social. That's not necessarily a good thing.
Game developers want you to get into large battles online, sometimes with your friends, often with strangers you don't know. They want you to get your rear kicked by 13-year-old boys who do nothing in the summer but play video games, who want to be a "professional gamer." Here's the thing: I don't want that, and I'm not the only one.
Stop Bleeding Me and Give Me the Game
To their credit, EA learned from their missteps in 2015. When they previewed the sequel to "Battlefront" this weekend at E3, they highlighted the robust single-player campaign built around an original fully developed story, and the fact that all post-launch DLC would be free and available to everyone. Yes, the game will have micro-transactions, but those won't make or break your game experience. You can still get past that major story point without shelling out an additional $19.99.
When I have time to escape the kids, the bills, and the wife to play video games, I want to do it by myself, or with the choice to occasionally play with friends. I want to enjoy a game, enveloped in its fully fleshed-out world. I don't want to be forced to play pimple-faced teenagers just to experience the story. I don't want to be forced to pay extra just to get the game I should have had when I purchased it first. I don't want to pull the slot machine lever over and over and over again.
I just want to play. Why is that so hard these days?
I'm fine with it and judge on a Case by case basis. Free market, no one is forcing anyone to buy and there's plenty of info out there to make an initial assessment. If enough people don't like it and don't buy and there profit drops the market will self correct .
I like DLC too.
As above - case by case. Not interested = no purchase.
This guy is clearly not a gamer of our caliber ::) DLC's are for the most part a "take it or leave it" proposition, and if it's a game I already enjoy, I tend to purchase DLC's to keep the fun going. Sure, some companies and/or games may push that limit and a DLC shouldn't be intended to make a game playable, but as -budd- pointed out, the market tends to self correct and bad word of mouth among gamers, i.e. customers, is not something a company wants.
DLC is why the gaming industry is surviving today. It generates the cash flow to keep developing. The guy who wrote that has no concept of reality in running a business in the software industry.
DLC may have some benefits, but it also enables devs to market at full price games that would, in previous times, have been considered limited and inadequate, knowing that they will eventually make even more money via DLCs that flesh out the game properly. This is an unwelcome shift from when a DLC expanded and extended an already full and complete product.
Quote from: -budd- on June 15, 2017, 08:15:18 AM
I'm fine with it and judge on a Case by case basis. Free market, no one is forcing anyone to buy and there's plenty of info out there to make an initial assessment. If enough people don't like it and don't buy and there profit drops the market will self correct .
What -budd- said. :bd:
Quote from: solops on June 15, 2017, 10:31:22 AM
DLC may have some benefits, but it also enables devs to market at full price games that would, in previous times, have been considered limited and inadequate, knowing that they will eventually make even more money via DLCs that flesh out the game properly. This is an unwelcome shift from when a DLC expanded and extended an already full and complete product.
That's been used as an argument for a loooooong time and I just can't buy it. There's plenty of games where I feel I've had my money's worth and I genuinely can't think of any where I've felt the DLC released was to complete a game.
The only one I could even remotely say that about was Titanfall II - and even then only because it was short. From a gaming perspective, there was plenty of game and fun and I in no way felt short changed. I don't even think they released any single player DLC for it and I believe the MP DLC has been free.
In the era of Steam, I find most games under-priced. I buy DLC and modules I know I'll never play for games where I think I got more than my money's worth, just to help a dev stay in business. CM and Command come to mind. In fact, I wish both could pump out DLCs faster.
On most games I just wait for the definitive edition, meaning a bundle at reduced price. Unless it's a Dev I want to support by purchasing early, and those are usually wargames or small Dev teams. Either way it's my choice and I'm not gonna bitch about it. My buyer's remorse usually has to do with" what the hell am I buying another game for, you dumb SOB" of course if I didn't buy more games than I need I wouldn't be allowed to be at grogs... Right....buying too many games is required to be member ... At least that's what I was told :peace:
Research. You gotta do your research. There are cosmetic upgrades, there are gameplay upgrades.
I say SCREW the gameplay updates! Gimme better SKINS for my vehicles! SOUNDTRACKS for $20!
Definitive Ultramaga OK editions are where it's at.
Quote from: -budd- on June 15, 2017, 01:44:58 PM
On most games I just wait for the definitive edition, meaning a bundle at reduced price.
Have I got the game for you...
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=19784.0
Think I got the CD of AOE #1 around somewhere, never could get into it, the battles remind me of being in a mosh pit at a metal concert.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I think people are making an unsupported assumption when arguing against DLC and that is that games "fully finished" (as described by the author) would cost only $50 or so. In other words, the author is saying "hey, I paid $49.99 for this, I should get all of the content that is eventually introduced in DLC!" The problem is that a game with all that content would be $100. With DLC, you are allowed to pick and choose what you want and don't. In 1986 I spent $39.99 on Sid Meirs Pirates!.... games are about the same price now that they were 30 years ago because of digital services and their ability to offer a base game and later DLCs. A game like EU IV with all DLC would have cost $100. Would you rather have to pay $100 for some stuff you want and some you don't or $75 for just want you want?
Additionally, the ability to earn more money from new DLC encourages gaming companies to continue improving games and creating new content.
I think the industry needs more dongles
Quote from: mikeck on June 15, 2017, 03:14:43 PM
I think people are making an unsupported assumption when arguing against DLC and that is that games "fully finished" (as described by the author) would cost only $50 or so. In other words, the author is saying "hey, I paid $49.99 for this, I should get all of the content that is eventually introduced in DLC!" The problem is that a game with all that content would be $100. With DLC, you are allowed to pick and choose what you want and don't. In 1986 I spent $39.99 on Sid Meirs Pirates!.... games are about the same price now that they were 30 years ago because of digital services and their ability to offer a base game and later DLCs. A game like EU IV with all DLC would have cost $100. Would you rather have to pay $100 for some stuff you want and some you don't or $75 for just want you want?
Additionally, the ability to earn more money from new DLC encourages gaming companies to continue improving games and creating new content.
This. \m/
I spend $32 for movie tickets and another $15.00 for a box of popcorn and a soda when my wife and I go out for a movie. That's $47 for 2 hours of entertainment. I've got no right to bitch about the cost of a computer game...which hasn't really gone up in price in 30 years.
I believe DLC does make most games I play more complete than they would have been say, in 1993. In 1990 a game was pushed out the door and that was that. Any further potential for the engine or game had to wait wait wait until an large project could be justified like an expansion or full sequel. If I like a game I cannot get enough of DLC.
Some games admittedly have gamed the system though. Total War being a big one. Making a complete game and then cutting bits out of it for release.
I am not for that. I am rather for DLC that extends the life of the game by coming out later than release as newly composed content.
Total War is probably the worst offender. For Warhammer there was some very expensive DLC. Which I did not buy.
Heh - or not.
I think the point of the author was that today it is impossible to predict what the "final" price of a game will be. In the old days, you went to Gamestop, you bought the game, and what you bought was the complete edition of the game for some price.
Today, you "buy in" at the base price, but to get the final game, you really have no idea what it's going to cost. Using CK2 as an example, I bought the base game on release for $50, but I probably have $250 wrapped up in it with DLC, and more are coming out.
Depending on how the developer does this, maybe this is good, and maybe this is bad. For CK2, you did get a finished, complete game...Paradox does it right.
I'd be curious what the Battlefront crowd has to say, or, say, Rise of Flight, where if you don't get the DLC maps, you are stuck unable to play on some MP servers.
Or they could be like Battlefront where every 3rd DLC is renamed to a 'full game'.. or at least priced that way.
Have no problem with DLC, and as already said case by case basis. If you don't like it don't purchase. Or wait for sales.
I really like the model for both ROF and CM. My only complaint continues to be the pace of releases of modules for CM. Its glacial. The games will never be finished. ROF on the other had a nice cadence and you could pick and choose.
My question is would you rather wait four more years for a game to be released or get a base game in two years and then spend two years buying the DLCs. To me, price is less of an issue. For good games, I am willing to give the dev money. For bad games, I buy the base, don't like it, stop buying stuff.
edit: And I agree on the BFC model of modules/games. And not because of price. Its because of the absolute confusion in patching and upgrading.
Quote from: Toonces on June 15, 2017, 07:09:50 PM
I think the point of the author was that today it is impossible to predict what the "final" price of a game will be. In the old days, you went to Gamestop, you bought the game, and what you bought was the complete edition of the game for some price.
Today, you "buy in" at the base price, but to get the final game, you really have no idea what it's going to cost. Using CK2 as an example, I bought the base game on release for $50, but I probably have $250 wrapped up in it with DLC, and more are coming out.
Depending on how the developer does this, maybe this is good, and maybe this is bad. For CK2, you did get a finished, complete game...Paradox does it right.
I'd be curious what the Battlefront crowd has to say, or, say, Rise of Flight, where if you don't get the DLC maps, you are stuck unable to play on some MP servers.
CKII was released in 2012 and EUIV was released in 2013 and both are still getting DLC. Added all up, the DLC for both has changed and expanded the base game.
But I got Stellaris when it was released. It's a decent game, but there's already been 3 add ons. Just seems to me that if you're putting out that much DLC that soon after release, that the base game wasn't as complete as it could have been.
So, again, my question is if its better for a dev to wait a year and charge more for a complete game?
I don't think there's a good, all-encompassing, blanket answer.
Quote from: RyanE on June 15, 2017, 08:47:22 PM
So, again, my question is if its better for a dev to wait a year and charge more for a complete game?
ARMA III seems to me to be a great case where you could buy into the beta early on steam, save a lot of money, support the game, watch it change and grow and even get to buy some spiffy DLC and/or expansions later. In many cases that seems to work very well for all concerned -- the game builders get to bring the game though all kinds of iterations (for that matter, I really wish Naval Action had stuff I could buy with real money instead of grinding -- okay I admit it -- I love the pay to win model) and the players get to play with an evolving game. Heroes and Generals (for me) is even more ideal in that I can dump in arbitrary amounts of money into an ever-changing game and occasionally come up with a poorly-thought out mess of stuff that allows me to win occasionally for a while. It's too bad CLoD wasn't built with more of a DLC structure in mind -- get the base game working with Gladiators and I-16s and Manicotti battling it out over China or something and then make people pay 79.99 for an 109 -- wheew! That would have been fun. And expensive.
Quote from: RyanE on June 15, 2017, 08:47:22 PM
So, again, my question is if its better for a dev to wait a year and charge more for a complete game?
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.
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.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who exploit the DLC system through over-charging or whatever, but it is by and large a good thing.
What you REALLY want to be angry about is this new trend to not even ship a finished 1.0 product because devs know they can always patch later. There's a temptation to be lazy.
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!
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
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.
Aren't sequels and prequels the movie equivalent of DLC?
Quote from: WargamerJoe on June 16, 2017, 05:46:07 AM
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.
Quote
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.Quote
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.
Quote from: Gusington on June 16, 2017, 07:34:25 AM
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.
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.
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.
You ate your Brain Wheaties this morning.
Quote from: Gusington on June 16, 2017, 07:34:25 AM
Aren't sequels and prequels the movie equivalent of DLC?
Exactly...and the lack of creativity.
Quote from: Gusington on June 16, 2017, 09:42:26 AM
You ate your Brain Wheaties this morning.
Agree with that
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 16, 2017, 09:34:27 AM
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.
Quote from: -budd- on June 16, 2017, 10:04:43 AM
Quote from: Gusington on June 16, 2017, 09:42:26 AM
You ate your Brain Wheaties this morning.
Agree with that
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 16, 2017, 09:34:27 AM
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
Quote from: PipFromSlitherine on June 16, 2017, 10:16:05 AM
Quote from: -budd- on June 16, 2017, 10:04:43 AM
Quote from: Gusington on June 16, 2017, 09:42:26 AM
You ate your Brain Wheaties this morning.
Agree with that
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 16, 2017, 09:34:27 AM
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
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!
Quote from: Phantom on June 16, 2017, 03:39:49 PM
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.
With all due respect Pip, the Panzer Corps model of DLC is one of the worst offenders. Some may see it as an a la carte approach but I see it, well, let's just say unfavorably. So much so that I rarely buy from Slitherine anymore and the few I have only on deep discount.
joram, I couldn't disagree with you more. The Panzer Corps DLC's kept the game fresh and interesting for me for quite some time and I still like to roll them out. In fact, I'm playing Soviet Corp now as part of my weekend lineup. Panzer Corp, since you brought it up, is perfectly intact and playable out of the box with no additional purchases needed. The DLC's present players with new options and situations, pretty much what one would expect from a DLC. Now, I don't necessarily feel the same warmth about Order of Battle, but like Panzer Corp, the original game is perfectly fine as a stand alone and doesn't require you spend another cent if you don't want to. I'm not sure what you think a DLC is intended for if not to add quality to a game and extend your hours of play. Like Panzer Corp or not, they certainly achieve that goal.
Like I alluded to before, some don't seem to distinguish between a finished game that adds DLC later and an unfinished game. Take Stellaris. If they released the game and you weren't able to invade planets or there was no diplomacy....stuff you HAVE to have in a 4x, that is unfinished and making people pay for the compete parts is wrong. But using DLC to add new races or a new element such as a detailed espionage system is fine.
DLC is not only a great way to ensure developers have a $$$ motivation for keeping the game fresh and new but allows players to pick and choose what they want to spend money on
Soviet Corps is one of my favorite DLCs. Just shows that DLC is fine if it is something a gamer digs at the right price.
Totally agree with the last two posts. O0
The Panzer Corps series is a pretty unique example - if you take all of the DLC and put it into one package, as they've done - that is just a huge game to release all at once initially.
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 16, 2017, 07:19:27 PM
Totally agree with the last two posts. O0
Me too. Order of Battle DLC adds e entire new theaters which I have liked a lot. Papercorps was a little more cut and paste, but not bad.
The quoted article talks about Battlefront Multilayer FPS. It's a different ecosystem than our wargames.
Waiting may not work. If you join late, a part of server population may have already moved to other games. If you don't get DLC goodies, you are barred from joining certain servers. And I would think most servers would always run the latest and greatest. This leads to suboptimal online experience. But the big companies would always want to add (paid) content to these types of games to keep the server population, which is crucial to an online game, alive. An alternative model would be free-to-play. But most of these games end up as pay-to-win which brings about another set of problems.
As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, it's a free market and vendors can price their product however they want to. A better question might be: Is it good long-term for the gaming industry?
Given that only a small handful of titles/shops seem to take this approach, I don't think it's that harmful. But it does run the risk of being something that works okay for short-term revenue but could choke off longer-term revenues as players get fed up with the approach.
The weak-sauce DLC I've seen offered for HoI4 is one reason I've held off purchasing the original game, though. Your mileage may vary.
In some respects I guess the gaming industry has learnt from (& muscled in on) what the modding community used to do - how many have played excellent Rome Total War mods for example - all of them totally free & done by enthusiastic members of the community.
The industry has seen this & learned - I'm guessing there'll be far less open source games out there in the future - you want an accurate doctrine Roman Legion or a well drawn Panzer IV - you'll pay for it in future I suspect, which is a shame as the ability to tweak a game can make it far more enjoyable for the user/customer.
I adjusted the speed of infantry in Total War games for example - which IMO was ridiculously fast in the vanilla versions- & its a little annoying to think that in the future I may have to buy a "realistic infantry speeds" DLC for $10.
So in a perfect world, to the anti-DLC crowd, which of the scenarios is better?
1) 2 years in development and released in 2017 and then 5-6 DLCs over the next year that cost a total of around $70.
or
2) 4 years to develop but is launched complete in 2019 and costs $69.99.
Keep in mind that Command, one of the most complete games you will find and is supported incredibly well with free updates and free new features over four years listed at close to $100. The devs took a pretty big beating for that pricing and it took 5 years to develop.
I guess the other thing to remember is that back in the early 1990s games were always around $100 complete on release, no DLC and rarely any patches. So we paid once, got a game that was complete but of limited scope. Rarely were expansions planned, I am guessing that is because the teams were broken up as soon as the title was complete. Where these days teams are kept working on a long term plan for years to come. Sometimes they were just left with whatever bugs they had, they were not well supported. Mind you most titles were simple enough back then that bugs were rare.
Last time software were products. Now they are a service.
Quote from: jomni on June 18, 2017, 09:12:12 PM
Last time software were products. Now they are a service.
There's also a constructive marketting side to the DLC model. The base game (particularly in games like DCS RoF and Mius Front) is a kind of big demo and if you want you can put a lot of money into the whole game. I wish Naval Action had been built more like that. As it is I've paid next to nothing for a game that (for me at least) is a tremendous grind. I wish they would just take my real money and give me some 6-pdrs.
Respect the opinion of those who disagree but I feel that kind of dribbling of content has the opposite affect for some like myself. If that makes me an old fogey, then i guess i will just own that!
MengJiao what naval action server are you on?
I believe the only paid content planned for naval action may be a few ships they would not otherwise have done. Those plans are not concrete either.
The other day some friends and I were trying to figure out how they were going to make money on the game and keep the servers going. They have given so much for so little really. A complete and massive sailing open world with trade\economy and battle instances. A world that is fairly realistic in terms of sailing mechanics as well. Amazing stuff for the $40 that I paid years ago really.
DLC's are a quick way to add more content to a game that you would otherwise more than likely not get.
If you don't want that content, it's quite simple - just don't buy it.
Good Hunting.
MR
I've worked with a dev directly and understand how finite profits are when it comes to making games.
I don't mind DLC at all, as long as it adds something significant or interesting to the game, and isn't required to enjoy the base game at all. For example, those that followed my posts about Car Mechanic Simulator 2015 know how ga-ga I was over that game and how much I enjoyed the DLCs. I don't mind supporting a dev in that manner; I can only hope it encourages them to continue their work. I had really hoped, for example, there would be a Car Mechanic Simulator 2016 or 2017...though I'm excited to have recently learned there will be a 2018 version coming out later this year.
Anyway, my support of DLC for PC games is in direct opposition to gaming on my iPad - I absolutely hate games there, as it seems 90% of them have "in-app purchases" as a requirement. Mostly they revolve around games that require you to buy in-game currency, or gems, or whatever-the-f, and that's the kind of thing I cannot stand, though I don't think it really counts as DLC.
As MR said - if you don't want it, don't buy it. Though for games, DLC content goes on sale just as often as regular games, so it's quite easy to pick them up for a steal down the road.
Quote from: Destraex on June 19, 2017, 06:49:45 AM
MengJiao what naval action server are you on?
I believe the only paid content planned for naval action may be a few ships they would not otherwise have done. Those plans are not concrete either.
The other day some friends and I were trying to figure out how they were going to make money on the game and keep the servers going. They have given so much for so little really. A complete and massive sailing open world with trade\economy and battle instances. A world that is fairly realistic in terms of sailing mechanics as well. Amazing stuff for the $40 that I paid years ago really.
I'm on the Unrestricted PVP (no port battles timer) one which seems to be closer to me (pings of about 40-70 instead of pings of 120-160). I agree it is a wonderful game, but I don't understand why it has to be an infinite grind. I'd like to pay real money and get stuff. As it is, I fish and sink traders brigs about 1-2 hours every other weekend. In about 400 years I will be able to buy some 9pdrs. The sailing and fishing and shooting is nice. I have no idea how to get trading to work. In the old world of the game, I got as far as 9 pdrs on a small frigate, but in the new incarnation I can buy about 1-2 6pdrs for my Pickle every week or two. I did get a set of rigging repairs, but at the moment, I'm on a basic cutter.
Back in the earlier world, I made most of my rank in half-a-dozen sea battles in a very nice cutter with all the extras and long 4pdrs. Ah those were the days. In the current game, if I can get guns on the Pickle, I'll try boarding (with a crew of 55, a Pickle ought to be able to take trading brigs without too much trouble). Meanwhile, the fishing is good if you don't sell at Havana (I sail for Spain as Meng Arceibo y Mateo).
Quote from: Destraex on June 18, 2017, 07:00:36 PM
I guess the other thing to remember is that back in the early 1990s games were always around $100 complete on release, no DLC and rarely any patches. So we paid once, got a game that was complete but of limited scope. Rarely were expansions planned, I am guessing that is because the teams were broken up as soon as the title was complete. Where these days teams are kept working on a long term plan for years to come. Sometimes they were just left with whatever bugs they had, they were not well supported. Mind you most titles were simple enough back then that bugs were rare.
Some of the titles were
Complex. The hardware and OS's were simple and small in scope. Today there are so many OS variants, hardware variants, screen sizes and numbers, 3rd party overlays and post processors that tic-tac-toe will crash 80% of the time. That is the issue most devs deal with and DLCs help offset the continued support costs to bug fix, tweak and add features to the core game by adding new stuff to do in the core game.
I never will understand why they make ww2 games againe and againe even though 10000 of them already out there. And on the the other hand , for a war like the 30 years war wich lasted 30 years and caused 8 millon deads there is always nothing. But life is like it is. But where is the problem, no one is forced to buy what he dont wants to buy.
Quote from: Micha on June 20, 2017, 02:46:20 AM
I never will understand why they make ww2 games againe and againe even though 10000 of them already out there. And on the the other hand , for a war like the 30 years war wich lasted 30 years and caused 8 millon deads there is always nothing. But life is like it is. But where is the problem, no one is forced to buy what he dont wants to buy.
What people make war games about is indeed a bit mysterious. I've noticed that games tend to be more interesting for me when the level of good, relatively accessible historical analysis for a topic is high and is part of the game development. So there was a rash of analysis for hoplite warfare and then a very good hoplite game came out that was at least informed in some ways by that analysis -- though other elements like the chit-pull craze and the traditions of the Great Battles of history system were also good for that particular game. Bloody April was a similar result of some good analytic background (ie a book called Bloody April).
The Burning Blue is an even more marvelous case in which the game designer went and did their own archival research on the vital but neglected topic of the exact timing of VHF radio installations and phone system to radio transmission relay systems. Operation Dauntless had similar on-the-ground and archival analytic work to assist in its construction. This sort of work is much easier to do for WWII than it is for the Thirty Years war so not only are games about the thirty years war rare, but they have tremendous analytic problems at all levels before they even get started, much less played.
An interesting transitional case is Fontenoy -- a marvelous game backed up by astounding amounts of research and set in a period that is possibly even more suffering from systematic analytic neglect than the Thirty-years war.
Quote from: Micha on June 20, 2017, 02:46:20 AM
I never will understand why they make ww2 games againe and againe even though 10000 of them already out there. And on the the other hand , for a war like the 30 years war wich lasted 30 years and caused 8 millon deads there is always nothing. But life is like it is. But where is the problem, no one is forced to buy what he dont wants to buy.
I think it's just to increase potential sales. Ask most people about WWII and you might get a answer that's recognizable- they've probably at least watched a movie about it. Ask them about the Thirty Years' War and you'll get blank stares.
Taking apart what we remember as being the standard of a full well-rounded and complete game and selling off the dismembered parts as DLC = BAD.
Selling content that enhances and builds on an already complete game = GOOD.
Quote from: Micha on June 20, 2017, 02:46:20 AM
I never will understand why they make ww2 games againe and againe even though 10000 of them already out there. And on the the other hand , for a war like the 30 years war wich lasted 30 years and caused 8 millon deads there is always nothing. But life is like it is. But where is the problem, no one is forced to buy what he dont wants to buy.
It's just the Free Market. The purpose of a corporation or any company really, is to produce wealth for the owner. So a gaming company will generally make the game it thinks it can sell the most of. Now, there are cases where a game is a "labor of a love" and the developers are producing a game they WANT to play; but they still need to make money on it.
WW2 sells. People know about it and frankly, it was the last major conflict between evenly matched adversaries.
I would love more games covering 1500-1800 but I just don't think the Market for that is anyhere close
Many of the Train Simulator DLC is still on sale at Steam.
Now you can get the whole package for only 4 658,87€ !
Quote from: Ian C on June 20, 2017, 08:58:35 AM
Taking apart what we remember as being the standard of a full well-rounded and complete game and selling off the dismembered parts as DLC = BAD.
Selling content that enhances and builds on an already complete game = GOOD.
Most DLC for wargames and strategy games fall in the 'good' category. Maybe because their target market is smaller and a bit older than the shooter public, who don't mind paying $20 for a few new maps.