Dragon Age

[Yegolev]

OK, so I made a game.  It's a big one, let's say one of those eastern-european RPGs except mine is good quality, like The Witcher.  I have been working on this game for five years and I plan to sell it for $50.  One day I slip on a wet condom getting out of bed and hit my head; when I come to, I have this idea to break my game into ten pieces and sell each for ten dollars.  Am I evil?

Later that day I accidentally hit my head on the rim of the toilet and when I wake up, I decide I want to release only Chapter 1 for $10 now and then release the others later, over time.  Am I evil?

Going outside to get the mail, I see a very attractive jogger bouncing by.  That gives me the idea that I can sell five select chapters all together since those tell the main story, then I can offer the rest of the chapters for sale later.  I could sell the main game for $40 and each additional chapter for $5.  Am I evil?

For no apparent reason, I design my next game such that the content can be divided up relative to gameplay mechanics instead of relative to story elements.  I plan to package the skeletal mechanics in the main box and sell gameplay functions as separate units.  Am I evil?

[schild]

You don't have to be evil to be a tasteless money grubbing pig.

[Yegolev]

I'm just playing off the "zomg outrage" in the thread, trying to keep the excitement going.

[schild]

I know.

[evan]

I agree that pointing out the storage available in the DLC was a marketing mistake. People get to thinking that such functionality will NOT be available in the core game, which is a faulty but natural conclusion.

As long as the core game is worth the $$ I pay for it, I have no complaints. If I get the the day 1 DLC and feel that the core game is somehow "incomplete" without it, then yes I will be pissed.

Day 1 DLC is not a concern as long as it is not central to the core campaign. What I expect from DLC is additional content in the form of:
- new quest(s)
- new area(s)
- new balanced items
- new mobs
- maybe new balanced abilities
- additional voice talent
$10 DLC should provide at least 3-4 hours of additional play. $40 DLC should be almost as large as the original and perhaps offer additional game play features not available in the original game.

[Yegolev]

Hell, if you scale the price according to content... well, that's not going to happen.  I'd be OK with buying half a game for half the money.  I mean, what if you could take $15 off of Brutal Legend by not buying the RTS parts?  Hassan Chop!

http://www.hassanchop.com/

[Velorath]

It's kind of sad how quickly people have accepted DLC when 95% of it is total bullshit.

Yeah it's sad how I accept developers releasing optional additional content for games I really like.  Especially on games that I ordered on amazon for around $42 which already have between 50 - 70 hours of content in them.  Yep we sure are getting ripped off here.

[schild]

I was willing to accept unlocking minor knicknacks here and there on a disc. But substantial DLC on day 1 that could've been baked into the game for additional story strikes me in a completely different way.

Also, you're just being contrary. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.

[Ingmar]

$10 DLC should provide at least 3-4 hours of additional play.

Hmm. Arkham Asylum was maybe 15 hours long, and people seem to think they got their $60 worth out of it. I'm told Uncharted 2 is about that long, and people are still saying game of the year. Meanwhile DA:O is estimated at 50-100 hours - even with an extra $7 tacked on for DLC the $/hour is way above what is apparently considered acceptable for other games.

I'm not sure I have a specific point to make, but it is interesting to me how we can get picky about $/hour figures for DLC without blinking an eye about it for base games in general.

[evan]

3-4 hours was a somewhat arbitrary value. Quality of experience is also a factor that is harder to quantify but is even more important. I also think we tend to have different expectations of play times from different genres.

DLCs do seem to be at a price premium. For example if you add up the cost of all 5 Fallout 3 DLCs you could buy a whole game. However the potential DLC buyer is already hooked, so you can get away with a little gouging. What is the optimum price point? They would certainly sell more at $3.99, but would they make more profit?

[Velorath]

I was willing to accept unlocking minor knicknacks here and there on a disc. But substantial DLC on day 1 that could've been baked into the game for additional story strikes me in a completely different way.

Also, you're just being contrary. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.

I'm really not just being contrary.  I honestly don't give a shit if a developer want to try to sell additional content on Day 1.  I don't have to buy it, and especially with development costs being what they are these days, I understand that in cases like this it might even be necessary for the developer.   Just because it could have been put in with game doesn't mean it's owed to you for free.  Like I said before, that game has been in development for over 5 years.  Do they not have the right to try to make their development costs back just because you feel paying $40-50 gives you the right to every bit of content that they've generated up until the point the game releases?

Edit:  In fact I'll go you one further.  Not only am I not just being contrary, but I think the only reason you and some of the other people here are so upset of DLC (and on Day 1 in particular) is because you guys have some tinfoil hat, slipperly-slope, conspiracy theories in your head about how developers will start taking large, important parts out of the base game just to sell to you as DLC later.

[AutomaticZen]

I was willing to accept unlocking minor knicknacks here and there on a disc. But substantial DLC on day 1 that could've been baked into the game for additional story strikes me in a completely different way.

Also, you're just being contrary. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.

I'm really not just being contrary.  I honestly don't give a shit if a developer want to try to sell additional content on Day 1.  I don't have to buy it, and especially with development costs being what they are these days, I understand that in cases like this it might even be necessary for the developer.   Just because it could have been put in with game doesn't mean it's owed to you for free.  Like I said before, that game has been in development for over 5 years.  Do they not have the right to try to make their development costs back just because you feel paying $40-50 gives you the right to every bit of content that they've generated up until the point the game releases?

Especially seeing as, minus the delay of the main game, the DLC would've come out maybe a month or so later rather than Day 1?  Would there be any complaints then?

I'm more reamed at having to pay $39.99 for Super SFIV than this.

[Yegolev]

Hmm. Arkham Asylum was maybe 15 hours long, and people seem to think they got their $60 worth out of it. I'm told Uncharted 2 is about that long, and people are still saying game of the year. Meanwhile DA:O is estimated at 50-100 hours - even with an extra $7 tacked on for DLC the $/hour is way above what is apparently considered acceptable for other games.

I'm not sure I have a specific point to make, but it is interesting to me how we can get picky about $/hour figures for DLC without blinking an eye about it for base games in general.

I am assuming your point is that quality trumps quantity; basically what evan said.  I agree with that, but the character generator leads me to believe you may be looking at 50-100 halfassed hours.  Maybe.  They really should have not let that one out because I'm assuming the game is shit based on that.  I'd rather play 15 hours of Awesome than 100 hours of Shit.  I can't be alone on that one.

As for the other conversation, personally I don't believe in "rights" exactly.  People can do what they want; obviously this DLC thing is great, or at least it doesn't suck.  I'd hate to see a marketing decision ruin a game, though.

[Ingmar]

Can you articulate what about the character generator makes it feel half-assed to you? Is it just that the sliders go too far, allowing you to create one of those inbred X-files mutant guys?

I'm pretty happy with it as far as it goes, honestly - compared to, say, Oblivion or Fallout 3 I can create a much better looking character. Being able to preview what the character's face is going to look like when it is actually talking is a particularly nice thing to have.

[Yegolev]

I'll have to get back to you since my reasons are not all that awesome.  Basically it's "my friends don't like it" and "everything looks like shit as seen in Oblivion" and I didn't see a slider lock.  I didn't like the one in TESIV very much and the comparisons come readily.

I'm still willing to give this game a chance, but I don't plan to get it on launch day or anything.

Ah, well, I didn't elaborate on the TESIV one, did I?  I found that there were just a few places on sliders where something looked decent, and some sliders were just an exercise in finding that one place that didn't look like garbage.  Plus it was like a one-way system since they only way to get back to something that wasn't from an X-Files episode was to just reset everything.

[Ingmar]

Fair enough. It could also probably use a 'randomize' button.

[Lantyssa]

The problem I see with DLC on Day 1?  Psychology.

The reality doesn't matter.  It stinks of a money grab to a lot of people, so it's bad PR.  Wait a month and it's a lot more tolerable and hailed as awesome.

[Sheepherder]

Edit:  In fact I'll go you one further.  Not only am I not just being contrary, but I think the only reason you and some of the other people here are so upset of DLC (and on Day 1 in particular) is because you guys have some tinfoil hat, slipperly-slope, conspiracy theories in your head about how developers will start taking large, important parts out of the base game just to sell to you as DLC later.

Do the tutorials count as important? (Joystiq)

[schild]

There are types of things I will accept on Day 1. These include:

Flair
Flair
Flair

Things that effect in no way, shape, or form even a tiny bit of the story or game (whether that be ADDING TO THE BASE or expanding somewhere entirely separate).

Things I won't accept on Day 1:

STORY

I'm sorry, but saying it doesn't effect the core game is just bullshit. If there's so much as a line of dialogue from anyone that isn't a merchant that says more than "What're you Buying?" it's a goddamn money grab. It's not psychological, it's the result of a marketing jackass.

[Velorath]

Edit:  In fact I'll go you one further.  Not only am I not just being contrary, but I think the only reason you and some of the other people here are so upset of DLC (and on Day 1 in particular) is because you guys have some tinfoil hat, slipperly-slope, conspiracy theories in your head about how developers will start taking large, important parts out of the base game just to sell to you as DLC later.

Do the tutorials count as important? (Joystiq)

From reading that article, those tutorials sound decidely unimportant.  Thanks for the three year old article though.  It's something I'll keep in the back of my mind if I ever decide to purchase Madden '07.

[AutomaticZen]

There are types of things I will accept on Day 1. These include:

Flair
Flair
Flair

Things that effect in no way, shape, or form even a tiny bit of the story or game (whether that be ADDING TO THE BASE or expanding somewhere entirely separate).

Things I won't accept on Day 1:

STORY

I'm sorry, but saying it doesn't effect the core game is just bullshit. If there's so much as a line of dialogue from anyone that isn't a merchant that says more than "What're you Buying?" it's a goddamn money grab. It's not psychological, it's the result of a marketing jackass.

So even a random side-story is a problem?

[schild]

At launch? Yes.

Edit: Because odds are there's at least some characterization going on.

[Velorath]

At launch? Yes.

Edit: Because odds are there's at least some characterization going on.

Why do you feel like one flat cost for the game entitles you to everything they've developed so far regardless of their budgets?

[AutomaticZen]

At launch? Yes.

Edit: Because odds are there's at least some characterization going on.

Fair enough.

[schild]

At launch? Yes.

Edit: Because odds are there's at least some characterization going on.

Why do you feel like one flat cost for the game entitles you to everything they've developed so far regardless of their budgets?

Because it's how games have worked up til...

...

...

...

Microsoft.

I don't want to make this a Microsoft hating thread. And I refuse to; the core idea behind DLC really doesn't bother me. It's the abuse behind it that does.

Why do you feel paying the box cost for a game doesn't entitle you to the content they've made for the game up until release?

[stray]

Yeah, really..

"Expansions" are one thing.. I mean, they are just that. "Expanding upon something we already made". But when a game hasn't even been fucking released(!), how is that in any way comparable to an "expansion"? What are they expanding on? Nobody has even played the original game yet.

As for DA specifically, I don't know if it's a cockblock or convenience.. I guess nobody does. Maybe having limited inventory isn't so bad in practice, and the game plays fine with it. But the general idea behind the DLC is still stupid. It just screams marketing decision, as opposed to "designer" decision, and I hate that shit. Can't do anything about it but bitch though.

[Velorath]

At launch? Yes.

Edit: Because odds are there's at least some characterization going on.

Why do you feel like one flat cost for the game entitles you to everything they've developed so far regardless of their budgets?

Because it's how games have worked up til...

...

...

...

Microsoft.

Of course, back in the old days before DLC, content that looked like it might not be ready for release would likely have just gotten cut earlier on development, never to be completed.

I don't want to make this a Microsoft hating thread. And I refuse to; the core idea behind DLC really doesn't bother me. It's the abuse behind it that does.

Why do you feel paying the box cost for a game doesn't entitle you to the content they've made for the game up until release?

Because it's not up to me to determine how a company wants to sell its product.  It's up to me to determine if I want to buy it.  They've got access to their financial numbers.  I don't.  I don't know what it's going to take for them to break even on this game or make a profit.  I don't know how much this game cost them to make, what their projected box sales are, or what their projected DLC sales are over the next couple years.  I don't know if the game and Warden's Keep were budgeted separately (I'd guess that any DLC that comes out afterwards is).

I also understand that why I go watch a movie in the theater, I'm not seeing every scene that was filmed and completed (and a lot of deleted scenes contain characterization.  My money doesn't entitle me to see everything they filmed.

[stray]

Of course, back in the old days before DLC, content that looked like it might not be ready for release would likely have just gotten cut earlier on development, never to be completed.

I think that's a copout, man. We're just talking about inventory space here. Not "content".  

Besides that, fuck, I can buy full downloadable games for just a little over $7. This is a just what probably amounts to the tiniest bit of code. If you are going to charge $7, try harder.

[Velorath]

Of course, back in the old days before DLC, content that looked like it might not be ready for release would likely have just gotten cut earlier on development, never to be completed.

I think that's a copout, man. We're just talking about inventory space here. Not "content".   Fuck, I can buy full downloadable games for just a little over $7. This is a just what probably amounts to the tiniest bit of code.

It's not just some addition to inventory space though.  It's "here's a Keep you can take over, and you can store shit there".  That's content, it's not a fix to the inventory system or something.

Also, if you haven't already, go back and read this post.

[schild]

Velorath, you're being uniquely ridiculous in this thread. I don't understand nor do I care why. I can think of a thousand reasons to have DLC out the door as soon as possible, but not one of them comes with a plan that I'd release DLC on day 1. That's reprehensible. Sorry.

Also, I don't care about the inventory space increase. That sort of DLC strikes me as stupid and insulting, but I'm not going to bitch and moan about it. Bethesda started that trend with horse armor, it's not stopping any time in the future. Doing such a thing on the PC is stupid though since someone will just mod it in.

Finally, when in doubt, assume marketing has massaged an answer.

[Velorath]

Velorath, you're being uniquely ridiculous in this thread. I don't understand nor do I care why.

No you're just being overly paranoid.  It's like getting upset when buying a new car when they offer something like say, an MP3 player as an option because you think if you support that, manufacturers will then start making important shit like the brakes an option you need to pay extra money for.

You're going off the deep-end over some shit that's optional because you're afraid you might miss a few lines of dialog (completely disregarding the fact that unless you play the game through 6 times at the very least there's going to be dialog and characterization that you'll be missing anyway).

[schild]

No you're just being overly paranoid.  It's like getting upset when buying a new car when they offer something like say, an MP3 player as an option because you think if you support that, manufacturers will then start making important shit like the brakes an option you need to pay extra money for.

No, it's nothing like that. But thanks for trying.

[NiX]

Why does everyone default to the car analogy when it comes to games? It just doesn't work.

[Velorath]

Why does everyone default to the car analogy when it comes to games? It just doesn't work.

Works better than "DLC sucks!  Developer's have no right to try to make money for their efforts!  ZOMG Marketing did it!".

[schild]

Hey, if a developer came out and said:

"We know you want housing, and you know we like money: Here's a compromise."

Instead of this other bullshit, at least it would just be a bitter pill to swallow. What shocks me is how unbelievably stupid you're being about it. It's like, there's a forest here, but there's no trees.