Developers Face A No-Win Situation With Downloadable Content
See Full ImageI've been thinking about it. There's just no way out for developers...gamers have them painted into a corner concerning downloadable content.
But first, let's be clear- I'm just as annoyed as anyone that publishers can - and do - charge for content we probably should've received on the disc in the first place. The advent of downloadable content aka DLC is just too attractive from a business standpoint, you know? "Sure, we can release the game and then charge more to add onto it; damn good money-making opportunity, boss!" But for the most part, I do not believe developers intentionally leave out content for the sake of raking in more bucks. I'm not jumping on that bandwagon.
Look, examine this from all sides: Firstly, developers - basically all developers - are gamers, too. And in speaking to many of them over the years, there's one trait that ties them all together, and I should think it's painfully obvious. They want to create the best game possible. They really do. Hence, if they want a game to have such-and-such content and they've got the time and resources to put it in, it'll go in. Publishers don't have quite as much pull over this process as some of the more skeptical and cynical gamers seem to think, and I've heard designers verify this in the past.
Secondly, the game makers in this case are in a no-win situation. Even if the DLC is fantastic and free, you will inevitably find people who complain that it should've been in the game in the first place. Then if you charge at all, those complaints increase in number and volume. Then, if you charge even more and the DLC isn't up to snuff, well, prepare for the windfall. And in the latter case, I would agree that we have every right to go, "Hey, this extra content blows and it so not worth $15." And that is a well-documented, ongoing problem this generation. Then you've got the on-disc locked content that has ignited yet another raging controversy.
Thirdly and finally, another part of the aforementioned no-win situation is the position developers often find themselves in: While the publisher can't dictate every step of the design process (as I said before), they can still make requests and even a few demands, and that has to be weighed against what the fans and consumers desire. It's essentially the epitome of the "between a rock and a hard place" saying. I should add, however, that I haven't finished a game this generation and said, "This was missing something and I didn't enjoy it." If it wasn't very good, that was one thing. But incomplete...? I'm sorry, I haven't seen that too often.
In the end, there's just no winning this battle. If there's any extra content at all, developers will inevitably face accusations and skepticism, regardless of the quality of that content or the intention behind it. It seems not a single gamer is willing to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, a team made a great game, got everything they wanted in it, got a lot of great responses from fans, and decided to issue more great content. ...no, that'd just be too tame and uncontroversial.
Tags: dlc, downloadable content, expansion packs, locked content
4/16/2012 9:22:01 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (62 posts)
Qubex
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 12:28:58 AM
Well maybe not so if you are nuts over DLC!
The whole point of DLC, and charging for it, is to essentially increase the cost of the game over time. Whilst DLC maybe produced after the main production period has completed, elements of the DLC are already in place, such as the engine for example, and therefore you have already paid for part of it.
Margins on DLC will be huge compared to the costs of the main game, therefore; it is understandable that the developer can increase overall revenue hugely by getting users to pay for DLC. In other words, the real cost of the game is not $60, but rather $70, %80 or $90, depending of course how many DLC packs are released.
To me it is another way of extracting every ounce of profit one can from the game without essentially increasing its price at "face value".
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 4/17/2012 12:29:35 AM
0 up, 0 down
bebestorm
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 12:20:46 PM
1 up, 0 down
Akuma07
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 8:22:27 PM
That is because most kids of this generation (bottom end of gen y, the rest of gen y are still okay) are spoilt brats who have to have their own way. If they don't get what they want, they bi*** and moan about it.
0 up, 0 down
Akuma07
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 8:30:24 PM
I think that it would be really nice if Devs could give us some small additions (new skins in AC:R, or new planes in Ace Combat) for free, but if they are creating new levels, new chapters of story, or whole new stories all together (used to be called expansion packs) then we definitely should pay for it. So long as they created it after the original game went Gold.
At the end of the day, they are still working, spending time that they COULD have been making another game, but instead they are trying to add more to a game.
And hey, every developer out there could have included all of their DLC into the original game, but the release date would have been a year or so later, eventually a game HAS to be released, any good developer could keep adding more and more and more and more to a game. But obviously cutting out content and purposely leaving it out to make it DLC after release is dodgey (Squeenix).
I personally love good DLC, nothing more exciting then finishing a game 100%, then some new DLC drops for it. The upcoming Skyrim DLC for example.
1 up, 0 down
Neo_Aeon666
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 10:36:36 PM
Reply
But I am against locked on disc content... It's just wrong. Just tells you they already had it planned and decided to hold it for later so they can make extra cash. However I look at it I always feel like I got tricked. Like how a few months later certain companies let you buy extra characters that weight 230kb XD
DLC is a great idea but it also allows some more greedy people to make it look really bad.
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 4/16/2012 10:37:47 PM
5 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 10:45:10 PM
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/16/2012 10:45:19 PM
1 up, 0 down
Neo_Aeon666
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 12:22:51 AM
0 up, 0 down
SaiyanSempai
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 1:20:18 AM
Just the sad reality of it all.
3 up, 1 down
Neo_Aeon666
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 9:18:32 AM
I don't have a problem with them working on DLC when the game has gone *gold* and is heading for mass production and I am pretty sure a couple of companies are like that. (I hope)
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 4/17/2012 9:20:38 AM
0 up, 1 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 10:38:47 PM
Reply
Want to know what actual DLC looks like? Check out a Bethesda RPG.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/16/2012 10:43:48 PM
7 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 10:54:06 PM
Sorry, no developer is free from this.
0 up, 3 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 11:04:36 PM
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/16/2012 11:07:59 PM
2 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 1:17:33 AM
But these games are rare exceptions to an overwhelming amount of crappy DLC. What I hate the most are the DLCs that are barely anything but weapon or outfit unlocks. They are the worst of the worst.
5 up, 0 down
Phoenix
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 1:16:44 PM
There is good reason why many dont complain about DLC like bethesda's stuff, just take a look at it, it's good quality stuff, and it's not D1 DLC on the store, or locked on the disc, it's stuff made after launch in most cases, and this is the kind of dlc that I have no issue with.
But then we fall into the bad kind of DLC, just look at most of the dev teams these days, a game will launch with DLC locked on disc, or day 1 DLC just waiting in store the moment the game comes out, THIS is what I have issue with, and every gamer has a right to bitch about it.
@Ben
Comon, you really dont think dev teams keep content out of the full version to resell as DLC? take RE5 for a perfect example, they locked out some MP part of the game, do u really think they thought MP would be a good idea AFTER they made the game? I dont doubt that some dev teams dont do this, but I'd wager most do.
1 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 2:54:07 PM
2 up, 1 down
Akuma07
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 8:43:24 PM
Every DLC I have ever bought has been downloadable.
I doubt people sit there during the games creation and say "this is cool, lets leave this for DLC" and if they do then that is just plain cheap, and honestly is not a very good design principle, especially by ethical standards. I would not want to support a company that promotes this kind of development.
I understand that some features of a game will ultimately be 'cut' from the game during the development process, but might be decided to add it when they create DLC. Because lets face it, not ALL games can have every single feature we want by the release date, games work on a release schedule, if they added in everything they wanted they wouldn't meet their target, so things HAVE to be cut to release on time. Then after release they can go back and think of possible DLC and the first thing they would look at, is anything that they cut from the original game because NOW they have the time to implement it, and the idea is already there.
Cut features from any game are a gold mine for DLC.
BUT cutting features from a game, for the specific purpose of releasing it as DLC, or locking features of a game out until we pay an additional fee for it is dirty.
0 up, 0 down
GuyverLT
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 10:39:07 PM
Reply
However when you've got developers like Team Ninja or Capcom who will deliberately leave content off or either lock content in order to charge more than it becomes a problem.
Another thing I don't like is this things where you only have a few alternate costumes, weapons is stupid, cuz little things like that SHOULD already be on the initial disc.
Last edited by GuyverLT on 4/16/2012 10:41:38 PM
4 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 11:06:04 PM
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/16/2012 11:06:35 PM
4 up, 0 down
GuyverLT
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 11:13:36 PM
2 up, 0 down
Akuma07
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 8:45:56 PM
0 up, 0 down
firesoul453
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 10:47:38 PM
Reply
After the map mack I bought for the first modern warfare I decided never to buy map packs ever again and I have no regrets.
I did buy uncharted 2's dlc and it was good but I felt like I didn't play multiplayer enough to get my moneys worth.
I don't know must just be me but I'd rather start saving for the next game than buy dlc.
1 up, 1 down
deftquiver
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 11:03:50 PM
Reply
The issue I have now, is that many developers are using DLC as blatant ploy to squeeze more money out of us. I no longer feel like I'm getting a complete game. DLC needs to add to the original experience, not fill a purposeful void.
5 up, 0 down
daus26
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 11:12:42 PM
Reply
Other than that... complaining about free DLC??? Now that's wrong.
There ARE ways to do DLC right in terms of value and content. Any developers that's smart enough will know how to utilize DLCs the right away and rake in plenty of generous revenue. Instead of downing themselves, developers should think of DLC as a goldmine for $$$. Just don't look like a nuisance doing it.
1 up, 0 down
chilker
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 11:14:22 PM
Reply
That has left me with a sour taste in my mouth when it comes to DLC. I just haven't gotten any because, like firesoul453 said, it's just never seems worth it. But also like him, I don't really ever play multiplayer, and that's where most the DLC goes anyway.
3 up, 0 down
sirbob6
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 11:40:15 PM
Reply
The rest of the time I enjoy how it lets me extend the life of the game, especially in the case of Fallout 3's and Dragon Age: Origin's DLC where they add a tremendous amount of play time.
4 up, 1 down
BikerSaint
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 11:47:36 PM
Reply
But I will buy real DLC if it's for a great game & done the right way, more like an expansion.
Take Borderlands for instance, I consider all 4 DLC packs were done right!
I've played 3 out of 4 of the DLC packs so far(and about to play the 4th) & each one is different enough & also long enough to almost be considered their own game.
1 up, 0 down
PSTan
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 12:07:22 AM
Reply
This correlates with the whole online pass BS. Here's a solution: if developers are afraid of losing money or not making enough, they should bundle an online pass with every new copy of the game, which gives free access to online components and future DLC NOT ON THE DISC. This gives incentives for gamers to buy new.
1 up, 1 down
gunblademaster
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 12:20:27 AM
If they did include future DLC on new copies I would definitely by them, however, I doubt they would ever do that.
0 up, 0 down
SaiyanSempai
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 1:13:23 AM
Reply
Like you, I never have bought a game and thought it was incomplete. And I don't carry the mindset that just because I purchased a product, that the company owes me their first born or something. A sentiment that seems to come across from many gamers these days.
games are no longer a single purchase product anymore, but could be considered a platform through which to provide more content.
And that can be a good thing, really.
3 up, 0 down
kraygen
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 2:12:33 AM
Reply
So I decided I would either buy the complete edition of a game when it was released and price dropped, or if no complete edition is to exist, ignore any dlc that's not free.
I just don't see a point any more to play a great game with a wonderful story and have a great experience, just to finish, pay $5-$15 more, and experience a side mission that might give me a new piece of equipment. I'm probably in the minority, but I am just going to pass.
2 up, 0 down
Shams
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 9:17:41 AM
0 up, 1 down
shadowscorpio
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 9:23:26 AM
1 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 4:26:03 AM
Reply
Having said that..there have been some pretty blatant attempts by publishers of stripping out content from the main game just so they can charge for DLC. AC2 comes to mind.
2 up, 0 down
___________
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 6:05:35 AM
Reply
they release DLC to try stop people from trading in their games, but then only offer 1 hour or so of content.
developers really should be looking at what bethesda do.
its not DLC, its a expansion pack!
and 99% of the complaints of DLC these days is it was cut out of the game, or its not worth it.
no freaking way in hell you could make that complaint about bethesdas DLC!
thats not to say people dont complain about it, they do but thats not to do with the DLC that has to do with the company themselves.
sadly they dont know how to debug their games BEFORE their released!
so bethesda ARE free from this!
0 up, 0 down
xenris
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 10:01:37 AM
Reply
You can tell mostly in games where the sequels start diverging from the originals true vision.
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but the Mass Effect series (this has nothing to do with the ending btw) is one that if you followed from the beginning you can see things that were changed for absolutely no other reason except to try and appeal to a broader audience or as I call it the CoD pie. Developers want this sure, but not as bad as the publishers, and certainly the developers don't want this bad enough to ruin the lore they established in previous games. There are changed done to games that no way the developers wanted to do. Dragon Age 2 also was such a ridiculous departure from Dragon Age origins that it makes me think the same thing happened. Also EA bought up Bioware just as they were finishing DA:O so thats probably why its artistic vision and old school design was still in tact.
A lot of developers don't talk bad about their publishers because they are afraid too. I've heard that from Brian Fargo and Derek smart to name a few.
However I will agree with you, that not all publishers do this and maybe its not as bad as I think it is. But EA is guilty of this, they tend to take beloved franchises and run them into the ground for short term profit.
If you look at their public page, for the last three years they have been cutting money out of Research and Development, and putting more money into PR. Thats a little backwards don't you think?
I think DLC can be an amazing thing. I remember how excited I was when Diablo 2s expansion pack was released, and baldurs gate 2. However the quality of those was sooooo much higher than most of the DLC we see today.
I see DLC today in about two forms. DLC that feels like it could have been cut from the game in order to make a few extra bucks, like day one character skins alternate costumes weapons or hidden dungeons. This is the DLC that I have issue with, because its small enough for people to say it wasn't cut from the game, but at the same time its small enough you could cut it from the game or lock it on disc and no one would be the wiser.
The other has I guess two sub categories, but its mainly DLC that is really substantial and meaty. All the GTA4 DLC was like this, and most of the Fallout DLC. These I'm willing to call expansion packs in some cases. I'm willing to buy DLC that feels like an expansion but still I don't usually because I know a game of the year version will come out for cheaper and I just wait for that usually.
Also I really wonder why the need to charge for this. When I see Valve and CDProjekt release a ton of stuff for free some of it quite substantial, and all just for your one purchase price. Well I really start wondering why others claim that they have to charge for all of this stuff. When people like Valve don't need too.
I think it comes down to ethics. I am obviously skeptical about what is and isn't cut from the game for DLC. I think if they want to do DLC fine but make it juicy and worth the price of admission and make it seperate from the original story like a side story sort of thing. Finally if they are going to do DLC through out the year and then release a new game annually...well pick one please don't do both. Otherwise how am I not going to think your trying to nickle and dime the consumer.
Last edited by xenris on 4/17/2012 10:06:14 AM
2 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 2:54:56 PM
1 up, 3 down
xenris
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 5:57:14 PM
Its mostly been EA and Capcom that I am the biggest skeptic about.
Its fine you don't have to give me any credence, but the truth is the truth regardless of whether you like it or not. You can look up online where EA cut funding, you can find quotes from those two industry veterans talking about publishers being terrible. Lastly you can see the Mass Effect series go from an RPG with shooter elements, to a cover based shooter with very few RPG elements compared to the first game. As well as you can see Dragon Age origin go from an beautiful deep traditional cRPG to a game that was nothing like the original.
There is really no other reason for these drastic changes except to try and reach a larger audience by making it more appealing to people outside of the RPG genre. Big Publishers have more influence than you think and you can see it if you pay any attention.
Why do you think Hironobu Sakaguchi formed mistwalker studios with some other veterans? So they could make the RPGs THEY wanted to for fans that they knew existed, without other people influencing what they made for the sake of more sales.
1 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 5:58:58 PM
Have you noticed that every last one of your arguments can be boiled down to one thing: money?
2 up, 4 down
Akuma07
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 9:24:08 PM
2 up, 0 down
Laguna
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 8:34:34 AM
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 11:19:37 AM
Mistwalker was a direct intention of Microsoft to steal away a large portion of the jRPG market SONY had made so much money on.
It wasn't about artistic freedom... It was about money.
0 up, 0 down
xenris
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 11:37:39 AM
You are aware that mistwalker has games on the DS, Xbox360, and the Wii right?
Microsoft merely backed Hironobu so that he could start mistwalker. I'm sure they did this so they could get some exclusives to help the Xbox360 sell more units in japan. But Hironobu wasn't stolen by them, from interviews and blogs he wanted freedom to create the games he wanted to, and mistwalker gave him that freedom.
Look at all the games they have made both on the DS, the Wii and 360. They are very traditional games, some with very old and in some cases archaic design choices. But he made the games HE wanted to. Lost oddysey was quite different from Blue Dragon, and The last story is vastly different from those as well.
I understand that there is a business aspect to everything in this industry. I just hate when that business aspect destroys the artists vision, or at the very least manipulates it so that it will appeal to more people and not the fans it was originally directed at.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 1:23:15 PM
It was a money motivated initiation.
0 up, 0 down
xenris
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 4:11:06 PM
The guy behind the Xenosaga and recent Xenoblade games left square for the same reasons. He started monolith so he could make games he wanted.
0 up, 0 down
Squirrelicus
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 11:30:40 AM
Reply
Arkham City was mostly LDC, the costume pack, Robin DLC, and Catwoman DLC was all available day 1 depending where you preordered. The DLC schedule was released before the game was shipped. By all accounts that's BS. I understand the concept of having preorder incentives, and I think it's fair to eventually make those incentives available to the general public for a fee. But developers have to support a game with genuine additional content in addition to LDC. Which by the way Rocksteady is with this new fairly extensive Harley Quinn DLC.
Capcom fails at this. MvC3 had only two new characters and they where both LDC preorder bonuses. Then instead of releasing a $15 or even $20 DLC pack with 12 new characters they just release the game again with the content all on disc to try and screw the fans out of another $60.
0 up, 0 down
Ultima
Thursday, April 19, 2012 @ 11:52:46 AM
UMvC3 cost $40, not $60.
Capcom -supposedly- intended to dole out UMvC3's additions to MvC3 as regular periodic DLC but they blamed the earthquake in Japan on scuttling those plans. It still sounds like BS to me. Nevertheless, their biggest mistake with UMvC3 was not the fact that they released it, but when - 8 months after their previous edition was begging for them to get raked over the coals and they deserve flak for that.
BTW, SFxT is the answer to the backlash over UMvC3. And now there's even bigger backlash over that. Capcom can't win really. I wouldn't be surprised if their response to SFxT's unwarranted backlash is to simply not make any DLC. Note that doesn't mean they'lt include extra stuff for free - they'll simply not bother making it in the first place.
0 up, 0 down
karneli lll
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 11:49:00 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
wackazoa
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 11:50:08 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 12:26:02 PM
Reply
We gotta coexist, and that's often about having a good moan. It feels good, just b*tch about something now and then and you're good. I don't like this "shut up and live with it" idea. No, I'll live with it but I gotta be able to moan. It's extremely underrated.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/17/2012 12:32:26 PM
5 up, 0 down
Dotaownz
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 1:25:28 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Comic Shaman
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 5:25:13 PM
Reply
It's the pre-order bonuses for different retailers that bug me. Does anybody understand what is being achieved with this strategy? For instance, I don't think anybody is going to order one copy of a game from Best Buy and another from Gamestop just so they can get the two DLC weapons offered as retailer-specific bonuses.
Who benefits from this practice? Does anybody actually like it?
1 up, 0 down
Robochic
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 7:02:20 PM
Reply
I see why people complain about it, i just miss the days where everything was included but you had to work for it. Now with some games it's just pure lazyness you can tell when it should of been in the game or not.
0 up, 0 down
Bevel
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 7:59:12 PM
Reply
I was reading your article and I thought it pretty fair. Then, as I was reading your comments I felt like creating an account.
I hope you'll pay attention to my points, although judging by your responses to xenris it would be no great loss if you didn't respond.
First, it's all about money.
Games aren't made by people wearing berrets on breezy balconies. This is an article from 2009 about how videogames made more money than movies in the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/sep/27/videogames-hollywood
Notable industry veterans on Kickstarter have said again and again how much they are overjoyed to be free of the influence of publishers. They claim that to meet publishers' demands they waste money making demos, and they waste time making adjustments so the game can be more appealing to a large audience. Brian Fargo has said that all of the caricatures of publishers he put in his Wasteland 2 Kickstarter video were based on real events. I haven't spoken to as many developers as you have, but apparently you never spoke to Brian Fargo either.
Do you really think that the ARTISTS behind Final Fantasy XIII-2 thought it would be beneficial to include N7 armor as DLC?
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9097729
And for that matter, do you think the artists behind any good work of fiction want to be tied to a one year development cycle?
http://www.product-reviews.net/2011/11/22/square-enix-wants-final-fantasy-to-emulate-battlefield-call-of-duty/
I'd like to bring up an unrelated point, but it highlights the lengths which EA will go to in order to shift public opinion in their favor.
Regarding the negative response to the ending of Mass Effect 3, EA has turned it in to a question of being for or against gays. There is a lot of press out there about how EA's big hit is hated on for containing gay romance, but this is complete bullshit. Bioware has produced games with gay romance before and they did much better on metacritic than Mass Effect 3 even taking in to account user scores. Just compare the metacritic ratings for Dragon Age 1, (features gay romance) Mass Effect 1 (features gay romance) and Mass Effect 2 (you get the point.)
So where did these gay haters come from all of a sudden? Why so many good ratings for precious titles if gays are so insufferable?
There was no campaign against any of those games and yet now when EA produces a game which garners almost universal scorn for its wet blanket ending, there's suddenly a question of whether or not gamers hate gays.
Anyway my point is that you needn't argue for the big publishers because they've got lawyers who are paid to do it for them. Argue on behalf of the developers who clearly want more freedom than they're being given.
Thank you for responding in case you want to throw in your two cents. Civil discourse on the internet is hard to find and I always welcome a well thought out, dissenting opinion.
1 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 8:05:29 PM
There's no need to over-complicate things. I'm not defending publishers; I'm defending developers, which I thought was obvious in the article. And all I said was that regardless of what DLC seems to arrive, there will always, inevitably be a complaint somewhere. That's all.
Not sure there's anything there to contest.
0 up, 3 down
xenris
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 8:56:53 AM
I think that while there will always be complaints here and there, thats normal for any medium. However what people complain about can change based on the quality of the DLC.
I do strongly think there would be less complaints if DLC was practiced in a more ethical way, like not locking stuff on the disc or having day one DLC that seems like its kind of important to the core game.
There is worthy DLC out there, and it shows in its quality and usually pricing. Not all DLC deserves a 9.99$ price tag. I also buy my DLC on steam because more of that goes to the actual devs while Valve only takes a small percent. That way I know I'm actually supporting the artists. Its kind of why I hope steam on the PS3 becomes more robust in the future.
0 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 9:24:04 PM
Reply
That being said, because I understand the dire situtation some pubs are in, especially those from the east, I'm compelled to support one of my all time fav devs with my money because the series means that much to me, even $100 that much.
I'm not suggesting I think DLC is a good thing, but I do suspect if it wasn't for DLC we would possibly have seen a MSRP price hike (like to $70) this gen.
BTW, Ninja Claws and Scythe are uber awesome, too bad they didn't make their way into the retail release.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 4/17/2012 9:26:32 PM
0 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 9:33:22 PM
0 up, 0 down
Maruf
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 1:08:35 AM
Reply
For example, if EA were not abuse dlc so shamelessly and released arrival and shadow broker as one dlc for example or if they didn't charge for every little thing in their need for speed games and other things like that would then I think EA would be a beloved publisher to gamers imo and they wouldn't win the worst company in us award.
EA makes quite good games but their shameless business behavior that dlc feature allows and their outright lies make people sick.
0 up, 0 down
Laguna
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 8:31:14 AM
Reply
preordering the game allows you quicker access to certain characters. But in the end, no one will be charged for disc locked content.
The director stated he isn't fond of DLC, but may consider DLC only in the form of negligible extras like costumes.
We are getting a crapload of content for $60. I wish more developers could be as nice as the tekken team.
1 up, 0 down
Draguss
Thursday, April 19, 2012 @ 6:26:13 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Gravelight
Friday, April 20, 2012 @ 12:42:42 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
bebestorm
Reply
Monday, April 16, 2012 @ 10:03:11 PM