It has long been a source of contention amongst gamers that we have to fork out just over £40 to enjoy a game on the day of its release, but we do so willingly for the most part because we know we have many hours of enjoyment ahead and because it’s a hobby we love and budget for. What we do not budget for however is the veritable tidal wave of DLC that the developers splurge forth when they plumb the depths of the cutting room floor.
DLC has long been criticized for merely being content that was cut from the original game, then released later in order to boost the bank balance at the expense of the lowly gamer. These aren’t unfounded accusations and this is frequently the case, like the DLC from Assassin's Creed II. Developers are working to rigorous deadlines and it’s not surprising that many ideas or missions have to get shelved in order for the story to flow and the game to get shipped on time. What’s not so understandable is then making us fork out for content that actually already exists, but just didn’t make it into the final cut. It’s like making someone a sandwich and missing out the butter, only to make them pay for it once they’ve already eaten half the sandwich. It’s stupid. Just like that analogy.
What’s more, the ridiculous currencies proffered by Microsoft and Nintendo for their respective consoles, means we often don’t realise the true cost of this DLC and are forced to buy more of these ‘points’ than is necessary to purchase the content. Such as Microsoft Points which I could rage about all day, every day until my teeth fall out and I grow a beard. For example, the DLC for Call of Duty Black Ops is 1200 Microsoft points, equating to about £10, yet the only denomination you could buy would be 2000 points, worth £17. This leaves you with an 800 point or £7 deficit that festers in your account until you get pissed off with it and buy some stupid freaking object that pointlessly floats around your disturbing little blank-faced avatar. It’s underhand and it’s unfair. The currency difference means depending on where you are in the world, you might be charged more and the injustice is compounded by the fact that the points/currency differences means not all of us know what we’re spending because the points make things seem cheaper than they really are. We become dissociated from the true cost because we’re lead astray with these pansy virtual points that lack the tangibility of a crispy ten pound note. I disagree with the points system on its most fundamental level.
I wholeheartedly believe that DLC should be free. I hate to bring it back to Black Ops as it most certainly isn’t the only offender but it has the highest profile DLC. When we all first bought the game, we paid £40. Nearly a year on and 3 map packs have been released, costing the equivalent of £30 (but of course with Microsoft points, the cost actually ends up being higher because you’re forced to purchase a greater amount than the 1200 points you need). When the fourth rumoured map pack is released, we’ll have paid as much for DLC as we paid for the original game and that just isn’t on. I am fully aware that this is all down to supply and demand. There will always be a percentage of gamers willing to pay extra for new content and so the developers certainly won’t give it away for free; it doesn’t make economical sense. But this idea of making gamers pay extra for content when they’ve already paid a veritable fortune for the main game seems unfair. It should be a case of “you scratch our back and we’ll scratch yours”. Instead, it’s us giving the developers a full on Thai massage, complete with a soothing foot rub and a piña colada while they pat us on the head and make us pay for our own lunch. It’s giving us nothing in return for our fealty and does nothing to promote goodwill between developer and gamer.
 |
| Just have a guess which one represents the gamer... |
However, to blame the developers the whole time would be to do them a disservice. There have been cases that have cropped up where the developers intended the content to be free, but were shot down in flames by Microsoft who don’t like giving things away as it has the unfortunate side effect of not actually making them any money. Such as the case of an Xbox Live arcade game entitled Marble Blast Ultra back in 2007. Its developer, Pat Wilson of GarageGames, announced on his blog that they’d just finished an extensive new map pack with loads of new game types and bug fixes that had just been passed on to Microsoft for certification. They fully intended to give it away for free. He then announced weeks later that the free content would never be available, with the announcement from GarageGames being “we are unable to come to an agreement with our publisher for the Marble Blast Ultra update”. Tellingly, GarageGames is both the developer and the publisher for this game so it becomes evident they are referring to the literal publisher of their content, Microsoft. Although this wasn’t a majour game, there were rumours abound that the same was true for Gears of War which had far reaching implications for many fans. This was actually confirmed as true by the Epic President Tim Sweeny in the 1UP Yours Podcast on 4/6/2007. (Information from here: NeoGaf)
Although these have been the only publicised occasions, what’s to stop us from inferring that Microsoft do this across the board? If the developer intends for their content to be accessible to anyone who purchased their game, it is incredibly unfair and wrong for Microsoft to then force us to pay for it. Many developers, especially ones like Epic with such popular and high profile games, don’t want to divide their online community and they enjoy the close and trusting relationship that they have with their fan base, as well as it being a successful business model, as it extends the life of their multiplayer. Paid extra content goes against what companies like Epic stand for and it’s not up to Microsoft to interfere with those ideals.
Another majour gripe I have with DLC is the inability to have control over it, even once you’ve bought it. Back when I didn’t have my own Xbox live account or console, I used to play on my brothers and the all consuming nature of my love for Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood meant that I really really wanted the Da Vinci Disappearance DLC. So I gave in and bought in on my brother’s account. I played it, had fun and then bought my own Xbox not too long ago. Can I have my DLC on my new account? No, of course I can’t, that would be far too generous. Same situation when the First Strike DLC came out for Black Ops. My brother and I decided to split the cost and buy it on his account, but of course, when I got my own account, I couldn’t benefit at all from my purchase and was left out of pocket and map pack-less while my brother just manically laughed in my face. And I was sad. This isn’t fair. You can move your game between consoles but not being able to take any of the other integral content is a kick in the face, considering you’ve paid for it. Even though it is quite obviously open to abuse, I think there should be some sort of personal code system, one per person that allows for a single transfer from one account to another. And to ensure people don’t just pass it between friends, perhaps a sort of verification system, similar to the one used by Microsoft to ensure your Xbox hasn’t been hacked. It sounds very wishy washy because it is; I quite obviously haven’t thought it through. This is my indignation at not being able to play content I legitimately purchased talking.
Sadly, DLC won’t ever be free because there’s no incentive to give something away when there are people willing to pay for it. But I believe any money that exchanges hands should be more of a token gesture, perhaps a few quid for any new map packs or missions, not £10 because that's a heck of a lot of expense on top of an already expensive past time.
/rant over
Please leave a comment and follow me on twitter @minnieliddell, I'd love to hear your thoughts!
I tend to avoid purchasing any DLC, even for my favorite games, unless of course, it comes bundled in a neat little "Game of the Year" package (I sheepishly admit to not yet having played Mass Effect 2's Lair of the Shadow Broker). I agree with you wholeheartedly that the cost of DLC is way too significant in comparison to the cost of the original game. I think Valve has done something quite significant by releasing all their additional content, as well as the Source SDK, for free. To me, Valve's strategy is the one that fosters customer satisfaction and long-term loyalty.
ReplyDeleteBioWare is better when it comes to DLC. Shadow Broker significantly changes the events in ME2 and while Firewalker was kind of light on story content, it did contain vehicle levels which was a gameplay feature absent in the vanilla game.
ReplyDeleteHowever I agree with a lot of your thoughts about DLC. Most of the time it's just nickel and dime bullshit. The parts about not being able to transfer the content between consoles and stuff is particularly galling.
I believe that DLC is the answer for the "trade in" issue the game developers complain so much about. Providing Free DLC will encourage player to keep their games even after completing them, and will establish a loyalty bound between gamers and developers. I also believe that game developers should be more worried to get loyalty than money, which in the ends translate into players emptying their pockets without giving it a second thought.
ReplyDeleteValve is a great example of a responsible developer that gives the player the place it deserves. Four years after releasing Team Fortress 2, they keep supporting it by releasing free updates for the game, user created maps, and recently even offering the game as a free download through steam. All Left4Dead and L4D2 DLCs are free on steam, and they wanted to offer them free of charge on xbox, but microsoft wouldnt let them, so they went for a low $7 USD price tag.
Triple A developers should pay attention to their fellow mobilie counterparts. Offering a game when once purchased, you get every update for free. I understand the business models arent quite the same in neither initial investment, nor development times, but i think they shold at least try harder to support their games and their fans.
Finally I want to say that there are some DLCs that are totally worth your money. A clear example of this is Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, i was so happy with my purchase, i dont even remember the price, but i was happy with what i got for my money. In the end it all comes to loyalty, I'd gladly spend some extra money on rockstar and valve, but i would rather throw it away than giving it to Activision.
For me, DLC can either be a good or a bad thing. For me this goes into the price of the DLC, and how the quality of the end product is.
ReplyDeleteFor me the best example to cite is Borderlands. This is what I would call doing DLC "right." There were four pieces of content for that game, both significantly extending the life of the game, but also added new weapons and enemies to fight. They were all fairly priced at $10 US dollars or the Space Bucks equivalent of 800 points. Now Borderlands is a single player game with drop in and drop out co-op, and so the multiplayer experience for that game I usually reserved for my friends.
Another example I cite is Mass Effect 2. The game's DLC not only adds to the story, but also adds to the sequel, Mass Effect 3. There are a few pieces of content that will impact how the story is played out in the sequel. These pieces of DLC are not only pieces of high quality work, with full audio, but also have new areas for you to explore as well as gain new items and characters to add to your crew.
For DLC that is done "wrong" I can practically site just about any Call of Duty game or Ubisoft game that has put out in recent memory. 15 dollars or 1200 Space Bucks for a measly 3 or 4 maps? Or 800 Space Bucks for add on content that was clearly cut for the game because it was too buggy? I am sorry to say, but Activision and Ubisoft has not recieved a penny from me since.
The issue of creating a fake currency to purchase said content on a platform, whether it be PlayStation Network, Xbox Live, or Wii Connect 24 is a bit...annoying, but the console makers need to a get a cut of the profit somehow right? Aside royalties for hosting the content on their respective services. Yes it is annoying, but it comes with the territory.
As for your comments of DLC being free, I agree and disagree with this point. Is it wrong for the developer to make a few extra bucks? I say no...at least if the content is good and worth the money. Looking back at Borderlands, the game had no actual plan for DLC. The fans demanded it, and the got it! It was all original content for the players to purchase and play. And what you got was a set of originally designed pieces of content that not only added to the game, but also extended the life of the game but made it that much more fun to play.
I agree that the developer shouldn't be hamstrung into making DLC they intend to be free to have some sort of pay for model. But such is the way of the world. The gaming industry has grown economically, and unfortunately many people making the decisions are suits and all they are seeing are dollar signs.
Sorry to all for the late replies! I've been all over the place this week but thank you all so much for your comments, they're amazing. Thank you so much for taking the time to write :)
ReplyDelete@Jwoozer
I completely agree, in fact, if such loyalty can be fostered, it'll reach the point where you won't mind if they release it for a small fee, seeing as they've been very fair before. I don't buy DLC for the same reason, not since my first 2 forays into it; it's just disproportionally expensive for what a lot of them are.
@Bobby Hunter
I know, spending that kind of money is bad enough but only being able to play it through on one account is really awful. I have heard very good things about Shadow Broker in the way that it plays an integral part in the plot. I don't object so much to DLC like that but then I do end up thinking that if it's so important and insightful...why didn't they add it to the original game so that all the fans could be on the same page?
@Diegowar
That's a really good point, exactly. If they want longevity and replay value, they should release free updates slowly and over a longer period of time, keeping peoples' interest piqued and stopping them from trading in their games. And I totally agree with you, money is transcient but if a developer can gain true loyalty from fans then they have a much longer and more fruitful future ahead of them and will be able to make more money in the long run. What you've said about loyalty to Rockstar and Valve but not to Activision is spot on and completely proves the point; if developers want to foster loyalty and convince people to eventually spend money on their products, they need to win your favour and nothing does that like free stuff. Spending 1200 Microsoft points on 4 maps for Call of Duty is a total joke.
@A Pixelated Mind
Yeah, I do agree with you actually, there is some content worth paying for, I shouldn't paint it all with the same brush but sadly, the majority of offerings are piss poor, just like CoD. You're exactly right, it's done so wrongly; that much for only 4 maps is ridiculous but sadly, many gamers are too excited to realised that they're paying a horrendous amount for what isn't really anything at all, not like Mass Effect DLC which I'll concede is actually worth the money (even though, like I've mentioned above) I think it should probably be included in the main game, at least when something important to the plot is added. Because other wise many gamers miss out on important points in the lead up to the sequel.
I do agree that the likes of Microsoft etc have a right to make a profit on things sold in their market place but they already win out on that front because they avoid incurring and credit card charges as the "space bucks" (I like it) act as a middle man. Using space bucks saves them a lot of money, so I think they shouldn't make the amounts that you can purchase so much larger than what you actually need. For example, allowing you to buy 1300 MS points for DLC worth 1200 instead of 2000. Then at least they've made a profit but don't force you to have such a large deficit.