Support NeoGAF

[thorns]

Today I was going through the PGR2 scoreboards, and noticed they had roughly 50,000 people each registered for the premium downloads PGR 2 had, which were basically some 8 new cars + 1 track each, priced at $5/5 euros. Now that is more than $500,000 in revenue, considering the exchange rates. That is also almost pure profit except the development costs, since there aren't any distribution costs, and I'm guessing bandwidth is very very close to free (we're talking about microsoft, after all). The development costs of these simple packs can't be very high either. Here we see a quite successful model that I'm sure MS will also follow with Forza and PGR3, and most likely sony with GT next. Even if only 50,000-100,000 people download these packs, if they're priced competitively, it creates additional revenue for the publisher. My guess is that, if both Xbox 2/PS 3 has some kind of mass storage (1gb memdisk should be more than plenty for this kind of stuff), we're going to see much more of these premium packs.

The key point is pricing, $5 is something most people just pay, but with Xbox Live Arcade they priced games at $15-$20, which is basically too high.

 

[Agent X]

The key is pricing, indeed. I don't think people would mind paying a few bucks for something worthwhile, but don't stack it on top of some gaming "online service" which also has its own separate user fee. That's double-dipping, and it's a terrible rip-off.

Console manufacturers need to make a choice. Either provide a free gaming service and then charge fees for the downloadable content, or have a "single unified service charge" and then allow people to download unlimited content wihout paying anything extra.

 

[The Faceless Master]

the one thing stopping me from any pay content on LIVE is that if it's somehow lost, you have to buy it again

 

[Solid]

I love DLC. But paying sucks :>

Buy console
Buy Xbox Live
Buy game
Buy new content

Not everyone is made out of money.

 

[shuri]

Wow, to post on gaming-age, i had to buy a computer, pay for an internet account, and then I could post ((

 

[Littleberu]

Wow, to post on gaming-age, i had to buy a computer, pay for an internet account, and then I could post ((

And what's your point here?

 

[Odnetnin]

I wouldn't do it. If its not in the main game, and it'd be nothng more than a patch/add-on. Might as well go out and buy another game altogether and play that (better when backlog hunting cause you'll save money). There's more stuff to spend your money on than gaming. What ever happened to unlockables too.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Of course the question the publisher/developer must ask themselves, is is it worth it to make a decent profit for several new cars and tracks... or use those as some of the additions to a sequel which will hopefully sell even more?

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

Of course the question the publisher/developer must ask themselves, is is it worth it to make a decent profit for several new cars and tracks... or use those as some of the additions to a sequel which will hopefully sell even more?

Many developers cut such download content from the game, or just continue to add a few things here and there after it's been shipped off for approval and manufacturing.

 

[Oxymoron]

And what's your point here?

He's probably trying to channel Penny-Arcade.

 

[AndoCalrissian]

See, this is sort of how I believe Nintendo should do an online service. As I see it, Nintendo does not want people to have to pay for an online service (as they've been quoted), yet Nintendo has no problem at all with repackaging older games and selling them. They should marry the concept to help dilute any cost for the service. I would be more than willing to pay $5 for a classic game, or pay a $50/year fee that allowed me access to a library of classic games, with one or two that I could choose to keep forever, and choose to do so at any point during that year's service, so I could try them out. They could also have downloadable "premium" content for their new games, much like Microsoft is doing.

Yay for being an armchair CEO!

 

[DDayton]

See, this is sort of how I believe Nintendo should do an online service. As I see it, Nintendo does not want people to have to pay for an online service (as they've been quoted), yet Nintendo has no problem at all with repackaging older games and selling them. They should marry the concept to help dilute any cost for the service. I would be more than willing to pay $5 for a classic game, or pay a $50/year fee that allowed me access to a library of classic games, with one or two that I could choose to keep forever, and choose to do so at any point during that year's service, so I could try them out. They could also have downloadable "premium" content for their new games, much like Microsoft is doing.

Yay for being an armchair CEO!

Eh. Somehow, I actually like the idea of buying a disk of classic games much more than the "pay a few bucks to download it!" -- perhaps it's the security? I'd gladly pay $20 for a collection of classic games (or $50 for Animal Crossing with 18 games inside it), but there is no way I'd pay for etheral video games on a console hard drive -- or, even worse, games only available on an on-line account.

 

[AndoCalrissian]

Eh. Somehow, I actually like the idea of buying a disk of classic games much more than the "pay a few bucks to download it!" -- perhaps it's the security? I'd gladly pay $20 for a collection of classic games (or $50 for Animal Crossing with 18 games inside it), but there is no way I'd pay for etheral video games on a console hard drive -- or, even worse, games only available on an on-line account.

I would say that it should download to the system, not just be online. Some people like it, some people don't. I personally hate the idea of downloading a $50 game, because I want a manual and a box, but for a $5 classic, I'd probably settle. It's all personal preference.

 

[FightyF]

Which reminds me, I gotta change my CC info and get these tracks!

I think it's a good deal, for the cost of lunch, I get new cars and new tracks (since I never got either update, I'll get 2 new tracks). It's a game I played a lot of...so it's worth it for me.

IMO, this is the way some games should be released to compensate for rising costs of development and development time issues.

Imagine a game, say an FPS game that only retailed for $19, is released with only 10 SP levels and 5 MP levels, and the game didn't finish there. It would have 10 new levels released later for a price of $5, and so on, until the game ends with 40 or so SP levels and 20 MP levels.

There are a lot of pros (and a lot of cons) in such a model, but I have a feeling that the pros would outweigh the cons.

Pros:
-low, low entry price point, could get it into many people's homes
-quicker release time since you don't have to complete the whole game before releasing it
-less time restrictions mean you can have fewer staff to do the same work over a longer period of time

Cons:
-people may want a meatier game bought at retail, before any content is downloaded
-broadband factor...not everyone has it
-how many people are willing to pay via credit card online, and will they see the new levels as worth the cost?

It'd be an interesting and seemingly profitable model...and it would all come down to the quality of the game for it to be successful.

 

[Tellaerin]

One of the things I've always liked about console gaming is the lack of hidden fees. You bought a console, maybe a second controller, you bought your games, and that was it. Ideally, the games you purchased would be complete, well-rounded titles, thoroughly bugtested and filled with nice meaty chunks of content, because the developers know that they have to get everything right by the time the game ships--there's no going back later to add stuff or fix mistakes.

Downloadable content is threatening to upset that particular apple cart, and I don't think I like it.

For one thing, I don't want to be stuck paying extra for content (cars, tracks, characters, etc.) that I feel could've shipped with the game in the first place. I also can't shake the suspicion that as this becomes more popular, designers will start holding back the really cool stuff--the best-looking characters, most awesome maps, etc.--to release later as downloadable content, in order to give people more of a reason to shell out the extra cash. So you might have a game that supposedly retails at $29.99, but if you want the whole package, with all the best content, you'll have to shell out for 2-3 downloads at $5 apiece. I'd much rather see companies incorporate that extra content in standalone sequels and sell them at full price--at least then, my copy of game X is guaranteed to have all the same cool stuff in it that everyone else's does.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

:lol Good luck trying to get me to ever buy "Premium Content". Unless it's worth a penny, I'm not buying it. Just because I have an internet connection doesn't mean I want to pay for "IGNInsider" and things like that.

If I buy a game, that means I'm perfectly fine with what's already there and I see absolutely no need to buy new content. If "Premium" Content will be required to continue playing the game, then I'll sell the game. If Halo 2 requires me to pay for their upcoming DLC (That is if it ever comes out *rolls eyes*) and I can't play matchmaking unless I pay for it, then fuck it. They already have the revenue from being one of the best selling games of 2004, they don't need anymore.

 

[Agent X]

If I buy a game, that means I'm perfectly fine with what's already there and I see absolutely no need to buy new content. If "Premium" Content will be required to continue playing the game, then I'll sell the game.

That's a scary thought.