Will abuse of DLC kill PC gaming ?

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Well, no. But the damage may be more severe than any in the industry seem to anticipate.

Once life was simple. Games came on tapes, cartridges, or discs and that WAS the game. Generally games were either good and sold well or they weren't and didn't sell at all (with a few (dis)honourable exceptions both ways). So the pressure was on the publishers - get it right FIRST time because there is no second time.

Digital download changes everything. Your game is potentially a constantly shifting entity, constantly altered by auto updates.

But this has lead to some really bad industry practices.

1) Games are being launched way off being fully debugged and optimised. Key example this year was Mass Effect Andromeda from E.A. where there were really major graphics glitches and poor voice synching. Ghost Recon wildlands, per PC Gamer review, launched with really poor A.I.
2) Most cynically far too many games are being launched with key content locked behind DLC pay walls. Sniper Elite 4 had apparently certain rifles locked behind a pay wall at launch. Sims 3 - virtually everything you can see is behind a pay wall. Offworld Trading Company - a game otherwise I'd have been up for buying - altering length of game - locked behind paywall. Civ V - many key elements from the earlier versions were kept back until an expansion and I felt the base game was immeasurably duller as a result.

In my view early purchasers - those that pre-purchase or buy games at launch or immediately thereafter are being dreadfully shortchanged. Most times now they are paying out £40 - £60 (or even higher) for a product that is a pale shadow of what the full game could have been and should have been. I think it's damaging design too because selling DLC has got a greater priority than giving customers a good time. These products aren't cheap. They're coming in at four to six times the cost of a new film DVD, five to eight times the cost of a CD (although no-one other thamn Adele and Ed Sheeran seem to sell CDs these days), a week's survival money for someone on benefits.

The more patient end of the market has gotten used to biding their time and picking up games two to six years down the line for 10 - 20 percent of launch price with far more content. Either that or avoiding the worse abusers entirely.

There's only so long the gaming industry can keep releasing games at AAA prices which are shoddy and incomplete at launch before everyone gets wise to these practices and no-one will buy new games. And that will be the kiss of death for a large part of the industry.

Perception takes a long time to turn around. Once people think that new games are an expensive exploitative con it will take a long time to persuade people to buy games at launch again - if they ever will.

Steam should be using its influence as the dominant market retailer to encouarage publishers to abandon the worst of the practices I've described above. They'll hurt just as much as everyone else, if not more, if launch quality of games doesn't significantly improve.

S.x.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

"Steam should be using its influence as the dominant market retailer to encouarage publishers to abandon the worst of the practices I've described above. They'll hurt just as much as everyone else, if not more, if launch quality of games doesn't significantly improve."

they did that with EA and look where that ended up.

[Satoru]

Things you don't like != abuse

DLC is popular

People buy DLC

[rojimboo]

Początkowo opublikowane przez gallifrey:

In my view early purchasers - those that pre-purchase or buy games at launch or immediately thereafter are being dreadfully shortchanged. Most times now they are paying out £40 - £60 (or even higher) for a product that is a pale shadow of what the full game could have been and should have been.

Yet they are the ones contributing the most to new games being made, due to revenues.

They are the heroes in this story, yet as you said, if playing at release, might be getting a slightly inferior version of the game, rather than waiting for it to get patched.

Incidentally, what you described, is why I don't like to buy Early Access games.

The more patient end of the market has gotten used to biding their time and picking up games two to six years down the line for 10 - 20 percent of launch price with far more content. Either that or avoiding the worse abusers entirely.

It might seem savvy, but most people cannot wait that long, and it contributes far less to the making of new games or creative content than you would imagine.

Avoiding it altogether means not playing some outstanding games. It's a choice, but not really for avid gamers.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

just like all the map pack dlcs out there for games. people buy them and they end up spending $150+ on a generic shooter.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Początkowo opublikowane przez cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

"Steam should be using its influence as the dominant market retailer to encouarage publishers to abandon the worst of the practices I've described above. They'll hurt just as much as everyone else, if not more, if launch quality of games doesn't significantly improve."

they did that with EA and look where that ended up.

:qr:

Checking the net EA's decision was far more about straight money than quality issues. Running their own website (Origin) may firstly save them a substantial amount on retail costs (not everything - keeping the site up will cost a significant amount of money). They're also hoping that their customers won't be asking why their games are 50% - 100% more expensive than other similar games that they couldn't avoid if they were on Steam.

S.x.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Początkowo opublikowane przez rojimboo:

Początkowo opublikowane przez gallifrey:

In my view early purchasers - those that pre-purchase or buy games at launch or immediately thereafter are being dreadfully shortchanged. Most times now they are paying out £40 - £60 (or even higher) for a product that is a pale shadow of what the full game could have been and should have been.

Yet they are the ones contributing the most to new games being made, due to revenues.

They are the heroes in this story, yet as you said, if playing at release, might be getting a slightly inferior version of the game, rather than waiting for it to get patched.

Incidentally, what you described, is why I don't like to buy Early Access games.

The more patient end of the market has gotten used to biding their time and picking up games two to six years down the line for 10 - 20 percent of launch price with far more content. Either that or avoiding the worse abusers entirely.

It might seem savvy, but most people cannot wait that long, and it contributes far less to the making of new games or creative content than you would imagine.

Avoiding it altogether means not playing some outstanding games. It's a choice, but not really for avid gamers.

I agree with you rojimbo that it is the customers who pay top dollar on the game's release that are key to its success - which is why the industry should be treating them better than they are.

S.x.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Początkowo opublikowane przez gallifrey:

Checking the net EA's decision was far more about straight money than quality issues. Running their own website (Origin) may firstly save them a substantial amount on retail costs (not everything - keeping the site up will cost a significant amount of money). They're also hoping that their customers won't be asking why their games are 50% - 100% more expensive than other similar games that they couldn't avoid if they were on Steam.

S.x.

i dont think activision or sega would be thrilled to discuss such a thing with valve.

you really have to contact the publishers as a consumer and have many behind you with the same philosophy to encourage them to changes their ways. until you get people to stop buying crap dlc, this will only stay the same.

[rojimboo]

Początkowo opublikowane przez gallifrey:

Początkowo opublikowane przez rojimboo:

Yet they are the ones contributing the most to new games being made, due to revenues.

They are the heroes in this story, yet as you said, if playing at release, might be getting a slightly inferior version of the game, rather than waiting for it to get patched.

Incidentally, what you described, is why I don't like to buy Early Access games.

It might seem savvy, but most people cannot wait that long, and it contributes far less to the making of new games or creative content than you would imagine.

Avoiding it altogether means not playing some outstanding games. It's a choice, but not really for avid gamers.

I agree with you rojimbo that it is the customers who pay top dollar on the game's release that are key to its success - which is why the industry should be treating them better than they are.

S.x.

Still, developing a game, especially for the PC, means bugs. It's the ultimate truth. You will ALWAYS have bugs.

Seeing as that is a fact, I don't see why we should penalise them further by not buying their games and DLC, seeing as most bugs eventually get fixed, or penalising our gaming addictions and waiting for X number of years to pick up a game from the bargain bin. At this stage, the developers have possibly put out another game, no thanks to you.

Though the long-tail IS becoming more significant with digital sales.

[LowJack_VA1]

Początkowo opublikowane przez gallifrey:

Well, no. But the damage may be more severe than any in the industry seem to anticipate.

Once life was simple. Games came on tapes, cartridges, or discs and that WAS the game. Generally games were either good and sold well or they weren't and didn't sell at all (with a few (dis)honourable exceptions both ways). So the pressure was on the publishers - get it right FIRST time because there is no second time.

Digital download changes everything. Your game is potentially a constantly shifting entity, constantly altered by auto updates.

But this has lead to some really bad industry practices.

1) Games are being launched way off being fully debugged and optimised. Key example this year was Mass Effect Andromeda from E.A. where there were really major graphics glitches and poor voice synching. Ghost Recon wildlands, per PC Gamer review, launched with really poor A.I.
2) Most cynically far too many games are being launched with key content locked behind DLC pay walls. Sniper Elite 4 had apparently certain rifles locked behind a pay wall at launch. Sims 3 - virtually everything you can see is behind a pay wall. Offworld Trading Company - a game otherwise I'd have been up for buying - altering length of game - locked behind paywall. Civ V - many key elements from the earlier versions were kept back until an expansion and I felt the base game was immeasurably duller as a result.

In my view early purchasers - those that pre-purchase or buy games at launch or immediately thereafter are being dreadfully shortchanged. Most times now they are paying out £40 - £60 (or even higher) for a product that is a pale shadow of what the full game could have been and should have been. I think it's damaging design too because selling DLC has got a greater priority than giving customers a good time. These products aren't cheap. They're coming in at four to six times the cost of a new film DVD, five to eight times the cost of a CD (although no-one other thamn Adele and Ed Sheeran seem to sell CDs these days), a week's survival money for someone on benefits.

The more patient end of the market has gotten used to biding their time and picking up games two to six years down the line for 10 - 20 percent of launch price with far more content. Either that or avoiding the worse abusers entirely.

There's only so long the gaming industry can keep releasing games at AAA prices which are shoddy and incomplete at launch before everyone gets wise to these practices and no-one will buy new games. And that will be the kiss of death for a large part of the industry.

Perception takes a long time to turn around. Once people think that new games are an expensive exploitative con it will take a long time to persuade people to buy games at launch again - if they ever will.

Steam should be using its influence as the dominant market retailer to encouarage publishers to abandon the worst of the practices I've described above. They'll hurt just as much as everyone else, if not more, if launch quality of games doesn't significantly improve.

S.x.

I purchase DLC all the time. I feel it adds and extends the life of games. I even feel glad about my purchases with Offworld Trading Company. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.

[Radene]

Some devs do their DLC right. Some don't.

But either way, a fool and his unearned disposable income are easily parted.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Początkowo opublikowane przez rojimboo:

Początkowo opublikowane przez gallifrey:

I agree with you rojimbo that it is the customers who pay top dollar on the game's release that are key to its success - which is why the industry should be treating them better than they are.

S.x.

Still, developing a game, especially for the PC, means bugs. It's the ultimate truth. You will ALWAYS have bugs.

Seeing as that is a fact, I don't see why we should penalise them further by not buying their games and DLC, seeing as most bugs eventually get fixed, or penalising our gaming addictions and waiting for X number of years to pick up a game from the bargain bin. At this stage, the developers have possibly put out another game, no thanks to you.

Though the long-tail IS becoming more significant with digital sales.

I accept bugs are inevitable. Indeed even the EU does - their regulations on the sale of downloaded electronic games expressly cover that. But in relation to Mass Effect Andromeda the problems weren't minor glitches uncovered as people did the unexpected - they were very clear and unsubtle problems on the main route through the game.

Seeing as how I've bought circa 250 games on Steam alone I'm one of the loyal and honest gamers that make the industry functional. Money from the "tail" sales probably goes to fund the third game.

But I think we both accept that it's the early purchasers at high prices that are critical to the industry's success - and that's why I believe that the industry needs to put giving them a good experience at the top of their development targets rather than monetising DLC - often by withholding what ought to have been part of the game as DLC.

S.x.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Początkowo opublikowane przez LowJack_VA1:

Początkowo opublikowane przez gallifrey:

Well, no. But the damage may be more severe than any in the industry seem to anticipate.

Once life was simple. Games came on tapes, cartridges, or discs and that WAS the game. Generally games were either good and sold well or they weren't and didn't sell at all (with a few (dis)honourable exceptions both ways). So the pressure was on the publishers - get it right FIRST time because there is no second time.

Digital download changes everything. Your game is potentially a constantly shifting entity, constantly altered by auto updates.

But this has lead to some really bad industry practices.

1) Games are being launched way off being fully debugged and optimised. Key example this year was Mass Effect Andromeda from E.A. where there were really major graphics glitches and poor voice synching. Ghost Recon wildlands, per PC Gamer review, launched with really poor A.I.
2) Most cynically far too many games are being launched with key content locked behind DLC pay walls. Sniper Elite 4 had apparently certain rifles locked behind a pay wall at launch. Sims 3 - virtually everything you can see is behind a pay wall. Offworld Trading Company - a game otherwise I'd have been up for buying - altering length of game - locked behind paywall. Civ V - many key elements from the earlier versions were kept back until an expansion and I felt the base game was immeasurably duller as a result.

In my view early purchasers - those that pre-purchase or buy games at launch or immediately thereafter are being dreadfully shortchanged. Most times now they are paying out £40 - £60 (or even higher) for a product that is a pale shadow of what the full game could have been and should have been. I think it's damaging design too because selling DLC has got a greater priority than giving customers a good time. These products aren't cheap. They're coming in at four to six times the cost of a new film DVD, five to eight times the cost of a CD (although no-one other thamn Adele and Ed Sheeran seem to sell CDs these days), a week's survival money for someone on benefits.

The more patient end of the market has gotten used to biding their time and picking up games two to six years down the line for 10 - 20 percent of launch price with far more content. Either that or avoiding the worse abusers entirely.

There's only so long the gaming industry can keep releasing games at AAA prices which are shoddy and incomplete at launch before everyone gets wise to these practices and no-one will buy new games. And that will be the kiss of death for a large part of the industry.

Perception takes a long time to turn around. Once people think that new games are an expensive exploitative con it will take a long time to persuade people to buy games at launch again - if they ever will.

Steam should be using its influence as the dominant market retailer to encouarage publishers to abandon the worst of the practices I've described above. They'll hurt just as much as everyone else, if not more, if launch quality of games doesn't significantly improve.

S.x.

I purchase DLC all the time. I feel it adds and extends the life of games. I even feel glad about my purchases with Offworld Trading Company. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.

You're not going to sell DLC without selling the game first. You're not going to sell the game, eventually, if it's a shoddy, half complete product primarily intended to sell DLC.

S.x.

[Washell]

Początkowo opublikowane przez gallifrey:

Civ V - many key elements from the earlier versions were kept back until an expansion and I felt the base game was immeasurably duller as a result.

While I will readily agree that a (large) part of that decision was to have content for an expansion pack there are some down to earth elements to that too. The accounting/marketing staff would have projected sales based on the initial design layout and come up with a budget, after which the project managers would have gone through the list of desired features, civs and other stuff, making priorities about what to include in the base game. Thoroughly keeping in mind that if they don't deliver a solid game first, everything they planned for the expansion would be a moot point.

Taking a step back and looking at the industry as a whole, we can see that since the introduction of the 3D graphics accelerators and their rapid pace of evolution, production costs have skyrocketed because with every new generation you have to redo all the models, textures, animations, update the engine and so on. Those costs, which were growing almost exponentially, have been dealt with through multiple means:

• The general growth of gaming as a hobby
  
• Merchandise
  
• Raising the price of PC games to the same level as consoles
  
• Small DLC in the form of weaponpacks, skins, etc
  
• Big DLC in the form of added content, missions, maps, etc
  
• Huge DLC/Expansion packs
  
• Creation of yearly franchises that allows you to get more use out of your art assets and engines before they're obsolete
  
• Reusing older art assets in mobile games
  
• Marketplaces surrounding the games
  
• Increased tail-end sales thanks to digital distribution and its sales
  
• Creation of middleware for common features between games (havok, speedtree, etc) to lower costs
  
• Consolidation of game engines to lower costs
  
• Default, multiplatform approach to maximize the potential market
  
• and probably a few other things I can't come up with right now

Take one or more tools out of that box, and you leave the publishers with only the most basic option, increasing the base price of the game.

If you don't like DLC, and don't want to pay for it, you already live in the very world in which it would be banned. Buy the base game and enjoy it. The content the DLC offers, wouldn't exist in DLC-free world anyway, because it wouldn't be in the budget at the $60 base price. If it did exist, you'd be paying a $100 by now just to buy a regular game. Which you are, if you buy the DLC!

If you take a look at gross revenue vs profit, the ratios haven't changed all that much over the years.

[LowJack_VA1]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Radene:

Some devs do their DLC right. Some don't.

But either way, a fool and his unearned disposable income are easily parted.

You have over 300+ of DLC's. Does that make you a fool that's been parted with their disposable income?

[»' Just GirlPower | Nana♥]

I must admit i love DLC's such as more singleplayer content (Like Borderlands) expansions like WoW, or characters, but i'm not fan of Maps/weapons DLC's for online game such be "Free updates"

And no it's not an money issue for me at all, but i do think games should spend more in development time, but each to their own, :)