Lunchtime Discussion: Exclusive DLC
What are your thoughts on one console getting something the other doesn't?Published 28/10/2009 at 12:00 by nofi
Lunchtime Discussion: Board Games [36]
Lunchtime Discussion: AI [35]
Lunchtime Discussion: Advertising [35]
Everyone likes to throw around terms like ‘moneyhat’ when one console gets something the other console doesn’t, but in actual fact most of the time it makes fantastic business sense. We’re not discussing exclusive games here, just the downloadable content, with the biggest recent example the massive extra chapters for Grand Theft Auto IV, which as I’m sure you’re aware are only available on Xbox 360. With the second chapter, The Ballad Of Gay Tony, out this week I thought it was fine time we all had a debate on whether this is a good thing or not.
With (we think) estimated sales figures for both versions of the game available on VGChartz, it’s apparent that the Xbox 360 version has sold around 1.5 million more copies than the PlayStation 3 version. At the time of release much of the discussion was based around the 360 version having a much higher resolution giving the game sharper, more defined graphics, but how much of the difference in sales is actually due to those two additional chapters, which Microsoft reported paid $50 million for in order to keep them exclusive to the Xbox platform?
And then there’s the other side of the coin – DLC that’s available for both consoles but free of charge on one of them, like EA’s Brütal Legend DLC that was announced on TSA yesterday -PlayStation 3 owners won’t have to pay for the DLC, which will cost Xbox 360 owners 400 MS points, assuming they download it before November 19th because after that it jumps to £3.99. Look closely at this, because although it seems like the PS3 is getting a great deal that £3.99 charge is actually 50p or so more expensive that the equivalent value in Microsoft Points.
So, is this EA being generous to PS3 owners, or is it hoping that the freebie will be offset by the long tail sales of the DLC at £3.99, or even by the supposed real intention which is to boost sales of the PS3 version of Brütal Legend? Will you be grabbing the DLC and if you don’t own a PS3 do you feel a bit cheesed off at having to pay out cash for something your PS3 friends will currently be able to download for free? What are you thoughts on console exclusive DLC in general – Tomb Raider outfits for the 360, Joker characters for the PS3?
As always with Lunchtime Discussion, it’s over to you.
Comments
Please note that all comments are the opinion of the individual author and not TheSixthAxis.
Paranoimia | 28/10/2009 12:08
Member
481 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Personally, I find exclusive DLC more annoying than exclusive games. Exclusive games are one thing, but if a game is out on a number of platforms, all DLC should be available on all of those platforms.
The fact that most ‘exclusive’ DLC seems to appear at a later date on other platforms anyway just reinforces the point. Exclusive games may sell systems – exclusive DLC doesn’t. At least, not to people with any sense.
skibadee | 28/10/2009 12:56
Member
3917 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
same opinion
skibadee | 28/10/2009 12:57
Member
3917 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
plus pissed that it is only on the 360 got rid of mine once it was repaired
Ryan1991 | 28/10/2009 12:12
Member
1996 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
I don’t buy DLC at the moment but I would prefer DLC to be released for both consoles as it allows everyone to enjoy it and it will make more money for the developer which means they will be able to stay in business longer and produce more games and DLC. When they announced the GTAIV episodes were exclusive to 360, I didn’t care but I thought it was a stupid decision. Why not let all of the people who bought your game enjoy the DLC too.
Anth1888 | 28/10/2009 12:18
Member
47 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
Same, however it is all about money. Rockstar sold the episodes for $60million (i dont know if that was for both or just the first) but Microsoft had the money for it and probably blew Sony out of the water. In a ideal world Rockstar would have released it for both consoles.
3shirts | 28/10/2009 12:59
Member
2487 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Spot on. Rockstar must have looked at the potential income from the DLC and predicted that sales on PS3 would come to less than $50m so it was business sense to take Microsofts offer.
I’m sure the actual game developer individuals would rather have put it out on both but its a business decision at the end of the day
Gastos84 | 28/10/2009 12:14
Team TSA: Writer
3888 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
I think it is a case of ‘6 to one, half a dozen to the other’. I remember when GTA DLC was announced for XBox only, I was slightly gutted, but have since forgotten about it, traded the game and never worried; so you get used to it! It is good business for R*. What was it? $50million? In the end, this money goes towards R* future projects and I believe they have one in the pipeline that is PS3 exclusive (can’t remember it’s name).
At the end of the day, the devs have the right to do what they like! I do like it when people give different exclusive content for both consoles, whether that be free or charged.
Having said that, with Multi-platform games, I don’t understand why they would choose exclusive DLC. I would have thought that they would need to keep both formats happy to ensure success for future titles.
Ryan1991 | 28/10/2009 12:21
Member
1996 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
Oh yeah. I forgot about that. I think it’s called Agent.
Manorhowze | 28/10/2009 12:16
Driving God
2032 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008
I don’t agree with exclusivity on DLC. Exclusive games is one thing but if a game is multiplatform then all aspects of that game should be multiplatform as well.
For me its disrespectful of the people who have paid money for a game.
Timed exclusivity is not as bad if its a reasonable amount of time. Anything more than a month is not fair on the people missing out.
SeaBeorn | 28/10/2009 12:19
Member
151 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
I agree with the ones before me.
DLC shouldnt be exclusive. And most of the times is only timed exclusives anyway.
scavenga | 28/10/2009 12:20
Member
537 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
I want DLC to be exclusive as long as I get it and they don’t.
3shirts | 28/10/2009 13:00
Member
2487 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Haha, nice
illogicology | 28/10/2009 12:26
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
I have a big problem with it actually. Back when it was unclear if the PS3 would ever get the DLC for Fallout 3, someone from Bethesda said they didn’t think they were short changing PS3 customers on the grounds that the basic game costs the same on both systems and offers great value for the price. It doesn’t take a genius to realise how insincere that argument is. One product has potential for expansion (or potential for expansion at a lower price) and one doesn’t. That is a difference in the product despite its subtlety. Furthermore, since most DLC these days is ready for release, it’s pretty obvious that it’s produced as part of the original project, funded by the original budget. I have a problem with charging for DLC produced on the original games budget anyway, but to then buy a title and not get DLC you’ve helped fund? If it’s not a coup for one system then why are Microsoft or Sony paying for exclusives?
I also have a problem with the lack of disclosure up front about it. The general consumer is not the same as the video game enthusiast and if a title is going to get DLC exclusively on one platform it’s only enthusiast circles that get the information. A lot of casual buyers on the high street aren’t going to know that buying GTAIV on the PS3 means they won’t get to play The Lost and the Damned
Lastly, I think there’s an ethical argument. If you sell a product to two group of consumers then you have a duty to provide equal support to both groups. I think that extends to DLC.
illogicology | 28/10/2009 12:28
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
Also, I don’t own brutal legend at the moment but I’m just going to grab it off the store while it’s free incase I ever get a copy. Surely everyone else is going to do the same? Well, except for that same group of casual consumers that won’t be made aware that it’s only free for a while.
Ryan1991 | 28/10/2009 12:33
Member
1996 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
That is exactly what I did for FIFA10 with the Bernabau stadium (didn’t know if they were going to charge for it later) and it is what I will be doing for Brutal Legend.
3shirts | 28/10/2009 13:00
Member
2487 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Same here
bunimomike | 28/10/2009 12:27
Member
4791 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
What a tricky bugger this is. On the one hand I can see how it’ll make the developers good money (from the very nature of exclusivity) and on the other… I want to see DLC available for all formats. Um, you know what? Sod it. The likes of GTA is a great game on the PS3 and if I really wanted the DLC I’d go and buy a 360. I haven’t… I coped.
shields_t | 28/10/2009 12:31
Member
1646 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
I really think that access to downloadable content should be considered part of the 40 quid you part with at the till of Game. However I’m happy to decide whether I actually purchase it or not. I am not interested in endless multiplayer maps, but I would defo have bought both GTA 4 chapters had they been available for the PS3.
Having said that though, exclusive 360 content is not in any way enough to convince me to part with a few hundred quid for an XBOX and online membership.
shields_t | 28/10/2009 12:32
Member
1646 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
Plus surely the bigger launch sales for GTA 4 were more down to the larger user base for the 360, rather than the promise of DLC a year down the line?
cc_star | 28/10/2009 12:32
Team TSA: Writer
7869 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Developers/Publishers obviously need their games to be available on both consoles so as to make it cost effective to bother making them in the first place, exclusive DLC usually involves a payment of some kind at a time that the developer needs it (during the year or two they are developing the game, and have no cash coming in) so one could argue that exclusive DLC benefits the industry even if you’re unable to benefit from it.
I really want to play Ballard Of Gay Tony, it looks better than the main game to me, but I can’t so I’m a bit disappointed, I suppose if I had more money, I’d by a 360 and then just like Hannah Montana I’d have the best of both worlds.
illogicology | 28/10/2009 12:46
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
The argument that DLC of any kind (exclusive or otherwise) brings in more money for developers and therefore benefits everyone is so flawed. DLC is really new to this generation and is really quite expensive, Rockstar got a huge sum from Microsoft (isn’t it estimated at around $50m?) and then costs around half the price of the original game. Someone is making a lot of money out of that and what the consumer is getting in return is hugely disproportionate. At least with GTA though we’re talking about a standalone, playable product that was made after release as and extra. Most other games are cutting out the kind of stuff that they’d have included as unlockables and selling it to us again. Developers are making HUGE amounts from DLC, putting less in the original game (what, we have to pay for alternate costumes in Street Fighter IV? isn’t that kind of thing usually just unlocked)
And y’know, I’d not really have a problem with them making huge amounts on stuff we used to get for free if it weren’t for the fact that the original game still costs £40 and if Activision gets their way it’ll be up to £60 in no time. The sad truth is that DLC in all its forms is being used to exploit consumers and will ultimately do more harm to the industry than good.
cc_star | 28/10/2009 13:24
Team TSA: Writer
7869 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
I agree costumes and other such crap used to ‘unlocks’ but if muppets are willing to pay for something, you can bet your life savings that someone will be willing to sell it.
With regards to developers making huge amounts from DLC, so what they’ve got to make money from something to make it worth their while going to work, that is the way of the world.
illogicology | 28/10/2009 13:35
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
My point was not just that they’re making lots of money but specifically that they’re making lots of money AND want to put prices up.
cc_star | 28/10/2009 13:53
Team TSA: Writer
7869 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
That is true of the biggest of publishers, but unfortunately the smaller ones, well the developers anyway need the money.
illogicology | 28/10/2009 13:57
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
Yeah, well the problem with responding to these issues with comment box friendly brevity is that it does lead to over generalisations. I’m all in favour of supporting the industry but there needs to be certain limits. I mean, if the worry is that developers aren’t making the money they need to make great games then they should be making more money out of the DLC than publishers but I bet they aren’t. I can’t defend more money going into the industry on the grounds that it will make better games when the people making the games probably don’t see the money.
Chimpanzee | 28/10/2009 13:02
Member
482 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Running out of money while you’re developing a game? Tough! Find another way to raise some money. There’s no justification for screwing-over half your customers. If you’re willing to sell the game to users of both, at the same price, then you should be willing to provide the same level of support to both groups of customers. If you’re not, go the whole hog and make it a platform-exclusive and get the benefits that come with it (first-party support, etc). You can’t have it both ways.
Chimpanzee | 28/10/2009 13:06
Member
482 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
… by “you can’t have it both ways” I mean, you can’t sell the game as multi-platform then treat your customers as if it was a platform-exclusive. I know the inevitable “they’re a business” and “they want to make money” comments will come up and while they’re true, it doesn’t stop deals like this being dickish.
illogicology | 28/10/2009 13:08
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
This is exactly the same as my argument against Sony’s region locked DLC policy. You can’t brag about making your console region free and then region lock DLC. That’s not being region free, that’s just a different kind of region restriction.
Chimpanzee | 28/10/2009 13:11
Member
482 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Completely agree illogicology. Same thing there. You can’t release and take money from customers all over the world, then treat groups of them differently – normally the ones who actually paid more for the product in the first place.
Chimpanzee | 28/10/2009 13:15
Member
482 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Although, as I’ve already mentioned, Sony’s exclusivity deal with the Joker was even more of a dick-move. That wasn’t additional DLC, months after the game’s release. That was essentially shipping two versions of the game, one with considerably more content than the other, and charging the same amount for both.
cc_star | 28/10/2009 13:26
Team TSA: Writer
7869 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
“Tough! Find another way to raise some money.”
Why? If someone is going to turn up with some cash and give it to you, then you don’t need to find another way of raising money.
The only way it will end is if everyone refused to buy DLC, and that’s never going to happen.
Chimpanzee | 28/10/2009 14:25
Member
482 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
I think that comes under the “they’re a business” and “they want to make money” category. Selling drugs to teenagers or people trafficing is an effective way to make money too, doesn’t make it right or ethical. I know it’s an extreme comparison but it’s the same principle.
Chimpanzee | 28/10/2009 14:28
Member
482 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
… I should probably say, I’m by no means implying that exclusive DLC deals are as bad as those things!
But the point remains, just because they CAN raise the money that way, doesn’t mean they SHOULD. It seems like games developers (or maybe Publishers are more to blame her) have forgotten what it’s like to be gamers.
illogicology | 28/10/2009 14:30
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
Well, business will never be ethical. I can accept that.
Fortunately for me, acceptance and approval are two very different things.
cc_star | 28/10/2009 14:35
Team TSA: Writer
7869 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
What? You’re comparing the selling of DLC to selling drugs or people trafficking, seriously get a grip.
There is nothing unethical about it, just because some people don’t like it or don’t agree it doesn’t make it unethical.
People make their choice knowing that the PS3 probably has more first party exclusives and that MS substitute their apparent lack of volume of 1st party exclusives by having exclusive DLC, it’s not possible to have the best of both worlds unless you own both consoles, and if anyone’s that bothered about it, then I’m sure they’d own both consoles, I would if I could but I can’t so I’m happy with my PS3, and great 1st party software support.
illogicology | 28/10/2009 15:07
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
No, he’s pointing out that something can be just because something is good business it doesn’t make it ethical. It’s a fair point, and as for your last point that anyone that bothered would just buy both, you’re implying that the whole objection is just a matter of sour grapes. That’s not the case, I happen to own GTAIV on both Xbox and PS3. My Xbox red ringed long after The Lost and the Damned came out, I could very easily have bought it and the Fallout 3 DLC back when it was new. That has nothing to do with the situation, I thought it was unethical when I could have bought it and I think it’s unethical now I can’t.
I’m not sure why it bothers you so much that we don’t think it’s right.
Chimpanzee | 28/10/2009 15:33
Member
482 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
“What? You’re comparing the selling of DLC to selling drugs or people trafficking, seriously get a grip.”
No! That’s exactly what I’m NOT saying! As clarified in my comment, I’m just pointing out that just because a company CAN do something, it doesn’t mean that they SHOULD. I think most people would agree that any company that does what, at it’s core, DLC exclusivity does (ie, treating one group of perope preferentially over another when the two have paid the same amount for your product) is unethical.
Please try to keep the discussion mature instead of telling me to “get a grip” when I say something you don’t agree with.
cc_star | 28/10/2009 16:01
Team TSA: Writer
7869 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
@illogicology “I’m not sure why it bothers you so much that we don’t think it’s right.”
It doesn’t bother me at all, its purely commenting on an article and commenting on people comments on it.
unrelated to your comment…. but I find it kind of funny that people think this is unethical but yet shop in supermarkets, whether that be for games, food or anything. Obviously it’s not linked to the is DLC commentary in any way, but it is intrinsically linked to what an individuals point of view is on whats ethical or not.
@Chimpanzee
You said and I quote “its the same principle” so you are comparing 2 highly illegal and highly damaging activities with the selling of DLC, so I think I was right to say “get a grip”, so I’ll disregard your final condescending paragraph.
masoke | 28/10/2009 12:37
Member
320 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
I don’t really mind. Not the most incisive comment, perhaps, but I’d only buy DLC if I had played and enjoyed the original game and wanted more of it. I can’t imagine that it is generally a system seller, and I think I speak for the majority of people who live in a single system (unless you count the Dreamcast) household.
It does make you wonder whether exclusive DLC makes business sense, though. For a developer, clearly it does, they get paid enough for them to ignore one platform, but did Microsoft or Sony really gain anything buy shelling out to secure it?
Vandix | 28/10/2009 12:38
Member
1198 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
I think the whole DLC thing is bad, as said by illogicology, it seems these days that DLC is part of development of a project. So the devs actually sell a half finished product, so to speak… I can understand it though, with increasing costs and such… But I don’t have to like it…
But DLC should never be exclusive, to get back on topic…
double-o-dave | 28/10/2009 12:42
Member
995 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
Doesn’t really bother me as I’ve never bought any DLC, saying that I think I might buy the Uncharted 2 DLC when its released. For some reason I get the feeling the Uncharted 2 DLC will be exclusive and not available on the 360.
Sympozium | 28/10/2009 12:45
Member
1648 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2009
I think its wrong alright if its minor, but stuff that adds too the story or episodic content is going to far its defiantly killed any anticipation for the new GTA cause Rockstar had screwed us over 25 million of cash.
Soild_Nat | 28/10/2009 12:46
Member
804 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
Most of the DLC i have purchased or considered hasnt really delivered on what i wanted it to. I only consider DLC if it extends the main game or compliments it, for example the Wipeout Fury expansion, the first DLC for Red Faction that added more single player content and back story.
I hate additional costumes, or car unlock codes these are just money making content that cant generate that much additional revenue for the dev. Map packs for multiplayer games i am a bit stuck on, the DLC content for Uncharted 2 will surely include additional maps and i can see myself playing the multiplayer a lot so will probably get this, the zombie map packs for COD WAW i didn’t get simply because i didn’t like that mode of the multiplayer.
At the end of the day DLC is all about choice for the player, you can pay the amount and enjoy it, or choose not to and still enjoy the game or get what you want from it. I just wish the prices for some it were a little less….
lukedotv | 28/10/2009 13:57
Member
36 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2009