Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

EA and Bioware know they hold the power when it comes to consumerism. They have an excellent trilogy on their hands, and they've extended their practice of including canon, story-advancing DLC in already full-priced games. The intro to ME3 is a clusterfuck without the context brought about by Arrival, and, to a lesser extent, Shadow Broker. This is simply an extension of that logic by taking basically necessary content and packaging it as day one DLC.

Would you rather them make insubstantial DLC with story that doesn't make a difference and no one really cares about? I mean I'm not going to defend the fact that the beginning of ME3 was a little bit disjointed because of the Arrival DLC, but really RPG fans want substantial DLC. They want story that matters. They want it to be canon.

I mean, really, when making DLC, I'm sure a company sits back and says "What do our customers want? What do they value? How can we make this something valuable to them?" You're essentially telling them not to do that. This whole thing seems to be a big problem because it's something people want, and so they feel forced to purchase it, which seems weird.

fans are definitely getting screwed over here..

it's one thing to have a road map and plan to release DLC from day one.... it's another to cut out pieces of the game to sell back to the consumer.

i believe next gen were going to see a huge lawsuit with this anti-consumerism... especially if game consoles go the way of Digital Downloads.

If you really think this is a cut out piece of the game, then you need to prove that the amount of content in the standard ME3 was somehow less, and that it wasn't worth $60. Then, you need to go complain about that.

 

[subversus]

Forbes: better games journalism than actual games journalism

 

[BruiserBear]

Developers/publishers have every right to make and sell whatever DLC they choose. There are many different ways to do this, and it's simply up to the consumer to decide whether or not they're willing to buy into it.

However, that does not preclude our right to call them out for lying about this stuff. I don't believe for a moment that these developers/publishers are literally hiring additonal employees and creating special teams that work on day one DLC. DLC that comes out 3 months after the game ships is a entirely different story.

If you're going to throw out day one DLC you should expect your words to be scrutinized. Know this and come prepared to explain it, and telling the truth is a good idea, because otherwise you just piss the smart people off.

 

[Fess]

Day1 purchase plus all DLC is never worth it. Buy second hand instead, even if you buy DLC later on you're still not paying all that much for the complete package.
Or wait for the complete edition one year later. Usually not an option I know... :/

 

[Slavik81]

i believe next gen were going to see a huge lawsuit with this anti-consumerism... especially if game consoles go the way of Digital Downloads.

Day 1 DLC is never going to be a legal issue. They're not being misleading about the content of the product, and they don't have much market power. Consumers can always decide not to buy the product if they think it's not good value for money.

A game being too expensive or lacking unpromised content is not a legal case that will go anywhere.

 

[TemplaerDude]

I'm just glad this is an issue again. I remember when on-disc DLC was first discovered and there was a huge outrage and then everyone seemed to just collectively shrug their shoulders and go "meh, everyone does it". I have never and will never agree with content being locked on a disc that I've purchased, and the more it is discussed the better chance some day that something will be done about it.

 

[Rengoku]

So I assume that for every DLC pack that gets released on XBL/PSN, the developer also gets charged for the bandwidth needed to serve it to the customers. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I'd say maybe 20-30% of a $10 DLC pack goes to bandwidth costs? So because Bioware manages to store the content on the disc before it goes gold, and only gets charged the bandwidth of a 100kb unlock patch, doesn't that mean they also get to pocket the extra ~$2 per download?

 

[scitek]

Generally speaking, I don't mind pay-for DLC if the price is right relative to the amount of content it offers, however I far prefer the Valve method of releasing DLC for free as a "thank you" to prior purchasers/added incentive for those who have yet to purchase. CDPR are well-versed in this, too.

Not saying I don't agree with you, but the two examples you gave also happen to own digital distribution channels of their own and are much more well-versed in dealing with customers than pretty much every other developer out there. I don't think it's a coincidence.

 

[Slavik81]

Would you rather them make insubstantial DLC with story that doesn't make a difference and no one really cares about? I mean I'm not going to defend the fact that the beginning of ME3 was a little bit disjointed because of the Arrival DLC, but really RPG fans want substantial DLC. They want story that matters. They want it to be canon.

I mean, really, when making DLC, I'm sure a company sits back and says "What do our customers want? What do they value? How can we make this something valuable to them?" You're essentially telling them not to do that. This whole thing seems to be a big problem because it's something people want, and so they feel forced to purchase it, which seems weird.

DLC is inherently a compromise in any story or experience-driven game. It forces the developer to compromise their vision of what the game should be for the sake of the business model.

The tension you describe is unavoidable.

 

[Escape Goat]

If its not in the core game I'm not going to buy it. I know I'm on the losing side of this trend but I do what I can with my dollar.

 

[Sentenza]

On a side note I'd like to point that I've already crossed a bunch of articles from Forbes now, and I'm mostly impressed by how competent they are on the topic of games and tech, especially if you consider how they are supposed to be "general press" and not the "specialized" one.

Guys...I hate to break it to you...

But it's all your fault. This is what gamers want.

This is from the "Awesome Video Game Data" session at GDC this year where EEDAR (a market research firm) shares a bunch of data about trends in the gaming industry.



If it's coming out in the first month, it's going to be developed alongside the main game...

"Meanwhile, in Valve and CD Projekt..."
Apparently there are other successful business models that don't necessarily orbit around the idea of exploiting customers.

 

[Manus]

And this is the reason I only paid $2 at Redbox and beat Mass Effect 3. Take that Bioware!

 

[BruiserBear]

So I assume that for every DLC pack that gets released on XBL/PSN, the developer also gets charged for the bandwidth needed to serve it to the customers. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I'd say maybe 20-30% of a $10 DLC pack goes to bandwidth costs? So because Bioware manages to store the content on the disc before it goes gold, and only gets charged the bandwidth of a 100kb unlock patch, doesn't that mean they also get to pocket the extra ~$2 per download?

$2 per download? That's way too high an estimate.

 

[Rengoku]

$2 per download? That's way too high an estimate.

Well, why else would they push to put the content on the disc as opposed to say a 100 mb download if not for bandwidth costs?

 

[Kintaro]

"Meanwhile, in Valve and CD Projekt..."
Apparently there are other successful business models that don't necessarily orbit around the idea of exploiting customers.

This. 8000 times this. We should be demanding that more companies treat us as well as they do instead of like trash the rest do.

 

[Bioloff]

Nailed it. Absolutely nailed it.

 

[alr1ght]

"Meanwhile, in Valve and CD Projekt..."
Apparently there are other successful business models that don't necessarily orbit around the idea of exploiting customers.

I seriously think they're the only ones who don't actively try to piss off their customers.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Man even I am starting to get fed up of Bioware's bullshit. At least try to play it down, instead of calling fans out.

Fuck you-

 

[conman]

Nice to see someone actually get at what's so wrong about this practice. It isn't so much that DLC is (mostly) already on the disc. It's that there's something dishonest about the whole thing. Yes, publishers should be able to charge whatever they want for DLC, but consumers should also have the right to be treated with some amount of respect.

Personally, I'm all for raising the prices on games from the outset. Charge us all another $5-10 rather than dangling a $15-20 piece of DLC that only some of us will buy. At least that way we all get to experience the full game--even if it costs us another $5. Or, hell, even better, if you add free content to a $40-60 game, you may get new customers paying full price retail for the game six months to a year from now. There's a reason that some iOS games are runaway successes and continue to sell well after release.

And at least it would be honest.

 

[subversus]

"Meanwhile, in Valve and CD Projekt..."
Apparently there are other successful business models that don't necessarily orbit around the idea of exploiting customers.

CD Project orbit around different type of customers (including those who don't buy DD for various reasons) and Valve have Steam and just awesome in general.

while I agree with you on this I think that only smaller companies benefit from not ripping off their customer. Small companies need loyal customers. Big companies need a lot of customers and have means to reach them.

 

[Rad Agast]

They lose money and potential customers every day it's not out, especially for character DLC like this. If I'm going to get character DLC, I want it on day 1, so I can get the most bang for my buck. I want to be able to use that character throughout the game. On day 31 I'm done with the game. Even though I don't trade in games, I'm very unlikely to buy DLC, especially character DLC. That's the problem with FFXIII-2's DLC. A couple minute fight isn't really worth it, and having a new character in my party definitely isn't worth it, because I'm done with the fucking game.

So that means if they wait till day 31, we'll get even less content, because less people will be buying it. So you'll wait longer for less, and even possibly just not play it. What's the benefit there for anyone?

So Bethesda and Rockstar are doing it wrong? They seem to be doing fine with Expansions being released later in a game's life.

Seriously, this argument makes no fucking sense. You are not entitled to everything that they produce at the same time. You can complain about the content in ME3, if that was subpar to you, and you can complain about whether the DLC is worth the 10 bucks, but you cannot complain about not getting it because it was produced at the same time.

I wanted the ME3 N7 CE, pre-ordered and every thing but since I live in a country where every thing is an import, the two shops who were guaranteeing me copies couldn't get hold of any. Tried every where else, still no luck. Guess what? Didn't buy the regular edition and will probably wait till next year before I buy this now (ME is still one of my favourite games this gen with multiple playthroughs on both 360 and PC).

On disc DLC is not OK and shouldn't be. Yes we might have been fooled earlier in the generation when we found out about it after buying the earlier games but screw this. I didn't buy Arkham City and won't be buying ME 3 or any other game that pulls this off during release period (voting with my money and all that).

 

[Sentenza]

CD Project orbit around different type of customers (including those who don't buy DD for various reasons) and Valve have Steam and just awesome in general.

while I agree with you on this I think that only smaller companies benefit from not ripping off their customer. Small companies need loyal customers. Big companies need a lot of customers and have means to reach them.

But that's not the point.
The point is that both companies have the established tradition to publish FREE DLCs, not cause they are incredibly nice and generous, but as an effective tool to keep the interest for their products high over time, to generate press coverage and consequent good will about their work and to boost long tail sales.

So, *there are* ways to hit two birds with a stone, to generate more money while keeping customers satisfied about your service.
it's not like the industry *needs* to exploit customers to survive.

 

[antiquegamer]

What they should have done and most many company did is to make DLC free for new copy buyer. It's extra stuff for buying game new and early. I think what they did is shitty but most people wanting GameStop to die and hoping for DD model, things will only get worst for consumers.

I won't be surprise if next gen will require activation code for all games and bind to one console or one gamertag.

 

[subversus]

But that's not the point.
The point is that both companies have the established tradition to publish FREE DLCs, not cause they are incredibly nice and generous, but as an effective tool to keep the interest for their products high over time, to generate press coverage and consequent good will about their work and to boost long tail sales.

So, *there are* ways to hit two birds with a stone, to generate more money while keeping customers satisfied about your service.
it's not like the industry *needs* to exploit customers to survive.

well, I have to agree with you because you are right in that regard. Both TF2 and Left 4 Dead 2 have history of being updated and sold with discount after these updates had been rolled out, and TW1: expanded edition did wonders to sales and general perception of TW1.

I can also add Killing Floor here.

 

[Massa]

Man even I am starting to get fed up of Bioware's bullshit. At least try to play it down, instead of calling fans out.

Fuck you-

It's not Bioware calling anyone out, Christina Norman works at Riot Games.

 

[i-Lo]

So Bethesda and Rockstar are doing it wrong? They seem to be doing fine with Expansions being released later in a game's life.

Rockstar I understand. Bethesda's habit of releasing broken games also happens to be a substantial problem especially when they have prior knowledge about it. I think R* is one of the rare big ones to reach a wide consumer base all the while devoting a good chunk of attention to its customer base for DLC.

 

[Snaku]

You have Microsoft and their introduction of microtransactions to thank for this.

 

[plagiarize]

Well, whether or not it does, the issue is really kind of the brazenness and customer disrespect involved in charging for the product the way they do. Deciding that this (the $10 day-one DLC release) is the best way to make use of the resources they dedicated to this content is essentially saying "we think it's more important to directly nickel-and-dime monetize our most dedicated fans than to build up reputational capital." It's a slash-and-burn approach to customer relations, which seems particularly foolish to me when ME is already a pretty big franchise and making people feel good about this stuff upfront might even translate directly into better overall DLC sales once the post-release expansion packs start to hit.

i don't see it as any more brazen than if say, the only way to get the extra stuff was in the collectors edition (which is pretty standard practice too). if someone like Valve keep providing great after release support, i'm going to keep supporting them obviously.

i don't have to think badly of people that release day 1 DLC to like people that provide me with free DLC after the fact. if, hypothetically, a company was giving me less and less for my $60 with each release, with each release i'm going to be looking much more carefully if it's worth my money, than i would be with a Valve game... but it wouldn't stop me buying stuff if it was worth $60.

the content here is optional, however well integrated into the game it may be (or however carefully it may have been fenced off, if you prefer).

slippery slope arguers just aren't really gaining any traction with me here, when the games people are really bitching about ATM are pretty unquestionably great value.

i genuinely don't know if Skyrim is smaller than Morrowind or not, but it's pretty clear to me that you sell DLC to people, only if you sell them the base game in the first place... and that's going to protect the amount of content we get in the base game, even if it doesn't prevent on disk or day 1 dlc.

you see those graphs of how DLC sells? do you think most of the people who buy it know when it was made or how it was budgeted for? i don't. and i think they don't know because it isn't important to them to find out. whether it was made two years ago with money budgeted for the original game, or five months ago with money budget for DLC it's still a set amount of new product, for a set amount of money.

that's what made horse armour so shitty. because it was a crap amount of content for a large price.

 

[Rad Agast]

Rockstar I understand. Bethesda's habit of releasing broken games also happens to be a substantial problem especially when they have prior knowledge about it. I think R* is one of the rare big ones to reach a wide consumer base all the while devoting a good chunk of attention to its customer base for DLC.

Bethesda have always been releasing broken buggy games (just check all the previous ES games on PC) and if you're a fan then you either expect that and deal with it till it's fixed or wait a few months till they patch some of the major bugs. I'm not cutting them any slack on their buggy releases but that's how it's been and I seriously don't expect them to get better at it any time soon.

My brother is going crazy with all the bugs in Skyrim on his 360, I've told him he should wait for a year but he didn't listen (his Oblivion experience was much better since I gifted him the GotY edition). I bought mine on PC and thankfully there's a good modding community for their games and any serious fan would have picked it up on PC because we know how bad their products are during their first year on the market.

I mentioned Bethesda in this thread because I was replying to this day 1 DLC crap. Bethesda have done it better with their expansions (ignoring the horse armor fiasco). My point being, they have been doing fine with DLC being released later during the life of their product just like Rockstar have done with GTAIV.

I think I'm repeating some points over and over so I'll stop now ;p

 

[WrenchNinja]

The DLC character is integral to the ME3 experience and if you dont have him, you really are missing out. He should not have been dlc and should have been included, it was truly a scummy thing of Bioware to do this to their fans.

The "hes not important to the plot" argument fails completely as barely any of the party members factor or move the plot forward.

 

[Durante]

I'm not an ardent DLC hater. I never had a problem with the stuff Bethesda is doing, or even the missions and companions released for the prior ME games.

But the "From Ashes" thing pushed me over the edge. It may only be marginally more brazen than previous attempts, but removing what is clearly a part of the game from the version you sell to people new on day one is too much.

I'd have waited with buying ME3 until I could get the complete game for no more than 30 € - luckily someone pointed out a way that enabled this on day one.

 

[charlequin]

If it's coming out in the first month, it's going to be developed alongside the main game...

There's a big difference between day one and month one, though. DLC of the former type is more likely to be something that you need to have right when you start the game and that's integrated throughout (as, indeed, From Ashes is.) DLC of the latter type is going to come out after most people have finished the game and will probably be something they can buy while still excited about the game, but which follows naturally as an extension rather than an intrinsic element. (In other words, it's far more likely to be something that very obviously doesn't "fit" directly into the game as if it were always supposed to be part of it.)

So I assume that for every DLC pack that gets released on XBL/PSN, the developer also gets charged for the bandwidth needed to serve it to the customers.

Nope.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I'd say maybe 20-30% of a $10 DLC pack goes to bandwidth costs?

Ahahaha wut. The bandwidth cost on that $10 DLC pack is like ten cents.

 

[RoboPlato]

The thing about this DLC that I think makes the issue a bit more confusing is that it was a part of the CE. Basically they could include it for the CE and make others wait or put it up day 1. Neither is a good situation but a least they didn't make non CE owners sit And wait.

 

[hamchan]

Trust is the key word here. One's perspective on day one DLC depends on whether you trust the developer making it. So many people bring out the budgeting argument and saying that the DLC wouldn't even exist if they couldn't sell it. How do you know this? How does one know they budgeted for a normal game and then added extra funding for day one DLC, instead of just budgeting for a normal $60 game and then cutting content out? We don't know, none of us do unless we actually worked on it. So then it becomes a matter of trust. Personally I don't trust Bioware or Capcom at all, so they can go to hell with their day one DLC.

In this case it seems pretty clear what Bioware did though...

 

[Dartastic]

I'm surprised that this article didn't also bring up Street Fighter x Tekken. In my opinion, it's WAY worse than ME3's DLC situation. It's just that ME3 is a bigger game.

 

[charlequin]

i don't see it as any more brazen than if say, the only way to get the extra stuff was in the collectors edition (which is pretty standard practice too).

I think this is also astonishingly brazen and disrespectful, and I think games where this has been true have generally been savaged for it.

if someone like Valve keep providing great after release support, i'm going to keep supporting them obviously.

You can't ignore the contextual difference between Valve, a company that makes a lot of efforts to earn goodwill from their fans (and therefore have some cover and cred to draw on when they do something unpopular) and Bioware, a company that have grown actively hostile to their fanbase and even their reasonable desires over the last few years.

In this particular case, I don't think it's hard to tweak this scenario into one where people feel less insulted. Swap the specific From Ashes character with a random human or something and I think you'd see less outrage.

 

[Dicer]

I've said it before and I'll say it again another million times, DLC is the worst thing to happen to gaming...worse than crappy DRM, worse than moneyhatting, worse than everything.

DLC and microtransactions are going to ruin this industry. Greed on the side of the developers/publishers and stupidity on the consumer side for continuing to support it.

Those who don't buy into it...or call it out for what it is, I applaud you.

 

[Kitschkraft]

Man even I am starting to get fed up of Bioware's bullshit. At least try to play it down, instead of calling fans out.

Fuck you-

At this point, they are at Denis Dyack levels of condescending attitude and smugness.

I love their forum right now. I have not seen backlash on a developers forum on this level since Fable 1 came out (My was it glorious).

 

[Camilos]

as a developer and a life-long gamer, I'm not going to support a publisher that is blatantly adding cost to a game that already costs $60. Guess I'll pick it up used, or wait for the DLC-bundled pack in a year or two.

Same here. I've put hundreds of hours into ME1 & 2 but I just felt insulted that they expected me to pay for content that should have already been inside ME3. And its not even about the money. Its about respect for your fans. Like you, I'll just wait for the complete edition.

 

[JonathanPower]

Just wow. Not already part of the game my ass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8

So what the hell do you download if the files are already on the disc ?

 

[tino]

I was surprised that Forbes.com make sone sense besides sucking up to Apple's dick, but it's just a blog post.

 

[Camilos]

You have Microsoft and their introduction of microtransactions to thank for this.

I have no problem with micro transactions when its well implemented. Lair of the Shadow Broker was a thing of beauty.

 

[Slayven]

People need to stop being fans of companies and realize they never have your best interest in mind for anything.

 

[antonz]

Javik without a doubt was total asshole move by Bioware to make him DLC. He adds a ton to the games lore giving understanding to prior reaper cycles etc. The mission to get him is lame but he adds far too much to the game.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

If the character model and abilities where alredy on the disc, what was that 600 mb download? No way that one level should have been that much.

 

[SketchTheArtist]

I can't speak for others, but I work at a studio that published DLC content to the single player experience (brand-new story arc) and it was released about 4 months after the initial release of the original game and people on GAF bitched and moan that it got cut so that the company could profit by 'stealing' more money or whatever.

That's complete BS, especially for a game like that with tremendous value for 60$ and I witnessed first hand the team working and crunching to get the DLC out on time to get the momentum of that game going. So to see people reacting that way towards some of the DLC material that comes out a bit after release is sad and depressing.

 

[Rebel Leader]

If the character model and abilities where alredy on the disc, what was that 600 mb download? No way that one level should have been that much.

The battle and cut-scenes on Eden prime?

 

[JonathanPower]

I can't speak for others, but I work at a studio that published DLC content to the single player experience (brand-new story arc) and it was released about 4 months after the initial release of the original game and people on GAF bitched and moan that it got cut so that the company could profit by 'stealing' more money or whatever.

That's complete BS, especially for a game like that with tremendous value for 60$ and I witnessed first hand the team working and crunching to get the DLC out on time to get the momentum of that game going. So to see people reacting that way towards some of the DLC material that comes out a bit after release is sad and depressing.

People will always moan and cry, but they will still buy the content so I don't really see the problem.

 

[Rebel Leader]

I can't speak for others, but I work at a studio that published DLC content to the single player experience (brand-new story arc) and it was released about 4 months after the initial release of the original game and people on GAF bitched and moan that it got cut so that the company could profit by 'stealing' more money or whatever.

That's complete BS, especially for a game like that with tremendous value for 60$ and I witnessed first hand the team working and crunching to get the DLC out on time to get the momentum of that game going. So to see people reacting that way towards some of the DLC material that comes out a bit after release is sad and depressing.

I don't complain if it's months after release.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

The battle and cut-scenes on Eden prime?

But those where real time, not video.

Edit: Oh, the flashbacks. Hmm, even then its still weird.