The Gaming Industry Needs To Stop Bleeding Players Through Endless DLC

Started by OJsDad, June 15, 2017, 07:57:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mikeck

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.
"A government large enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."--Thomas Jefferson

jamus34

Insert witty comment here.

Slick Wilhelm

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.

Destraex

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.
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

Gusington

Total War is probably the worst offender. For Warhammer there was some very expensive DLC. Which I did not buy.


слава Україна!

We can't live under the threat of a c*nt because he's threatening nuclear Armageddon.

-JudgeDredd


Gusington



слава Україна!

We can't live under the threat of a c*nt because he's threatening nuclear Armageddon.

-JudgeDredd

Toonces

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.
"If you had a chance, right now, to go back in time and stop Hitler, wouldn't you do it?  I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he's awesome." - Eric Cartman

"Does a watch list mean you are being watched or is it a come on to Toonces?" - Biggs

Tuna

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.

RyanE

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.

OJsDad

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. 
'Here at NASA we all pee the same color.'  Al Harrison from the movie Hidden Figures.

RyanE

So, again, my question is if its better for a dev to wait a year and charge more for a complete game?

Gusington

I don't think there's a good, all-encompassing, blanket answer.


слава Україна!

We can't live under the threat of a c*nt because he's threatening nuclear Armageddon.

-JudgeDredd

MengJiao

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.

HoodedHorseJoe

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.
Communications Director
Hooded Horse

We are a publisher of indie games with strategic and tactical depth. 28 projects and counting, come check out our portfolio on Steam, GOG, and the Epic Games Store!

You may have seen me around in previous roles such as editor of Wargamer.com and Strategy Gamer.