XI
you are not logged in
News

EA's Peter Moore Talks About DLC Turning A $60 Game Into A $80 Game

Sigh.


Peter Moore
Whilst some members of the team here are perfectly happy with the concept of launch day DLC, I’m of the opinion that a little bit needs to be done from the publishers with regards to convincing the end user that it’s not just all about the money.

I know it is, of course, but gamers, like any consumers, are happiest when they feel like they’re being looked after.

The subject of day one DLC rears its head frequently here on TSA, but recently EA’s Peter Moore spoke out about addition revenue streams and, as picked up by Gamasutra, something he said has echoed around the web.

“The key thing is selling digital content on the day of launch,” he said, proudly. “When we sold Mass Effect 3 back in March, we saw a 40 percent attach rate that first week to DLC at GameStop in the United States.”

“Not only are you selling a $60 game,” he added, “you’re selling $20 DLC, so the sale becomes $80.”

Well, that’s really nice. But as a consumer these sort of comments grate a little bit, because it seems like this is quickly becoming the norm. Yes, it’s optional, but it’s clear that – like Project $10 and the online pass – day one DLC will very quickly become the standard.

It’s all about the money, isn’t it?

“Once we get that disk installed in the tray of an Xbox or a PS3, we then look at our consumer on an ARPU basis,” added Moore.  ARPU? Average Revenue Per User.

Long term, I see this becoming more and more essential too – publishers will still label it as ‘optional’, but it’ll start with a slightly better gun as DLC, then a faster car, then an extra level… Anything to get us to keep spending even though we’ve already paid for the game which, I might add, are hardly getting cheaper.

Read more: #
90 Comments
  1. cc_star
    Team TSA: Writer
    Since: Forever

    You exist only as £$€¥ note signs to this company.

    Then once you’ve paid your money they’ll either deactivate your game unless enough people moan like iOS Rockband & lie about it being a mistake… Or they’ll start turning servers off.

    Anyway, here’s some chaff… A new game to play so we can leverage a bit more out of you.

    Of course, that’s the way of the world though.

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 09:37.
    • Bilbo_bobbins
      Member
      Since: Jun 2009

      EA are started to grate massively with me. This comment has basically put me on a strike with any future EA games. Well done EA, you lost one customer.

      Absolutely pathetic way of treating customers. Yes its a business, but they way they come over its insulting, and their customer service is a absolute joke too.

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:05.
    • Klart
      Member
      Since: Jun 2010

      What these people don’t understand is that this nonsense will bite them in the face one day.

      Of course it’s all about the money, but if the customer feels like being squeezed like a lemon & being thrown away afterwards (shutting public servers down in BF3), he will take his money elsewhere.

      It’s all about keeping your customers satisfied. If that works, the money will follow.

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:06.
    • hazelam
      Member
      Since: Feb 2009

      what was that last one?

      it looks like a bunny rabbit head. o_O

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:03.
      • Shakugan
        Member
        Since: Mar 2010

        It’s a Japan currency called “Yen”… Whaaaat you didn’t even know that?? :O

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:26.
      • SH Number 7/Mini-Lipscombe
        Member
        Since: May 2011

        Yen Japanese money.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:26.
    • darklord1977
      Member
      Since: May 2012

      Rant begin:
      I will NEVER pay for DLC. If publishers start turning this DLC into anything integral/essential rather than optional (e.g. trophies that stop you getting Platinum, or huge chunks of narrative etc). I won’t buy their games.
      Paid for DLC (Especially day one DLC) should be boycotted!!!!
      Also, I’m no fan of download only titles either. If this becomes the norm, I will also boycott this. I like to be able to trade in my games. I like the option of a ‘bargain bin’ or half price games based on trade in’s that is driven by demand, rather than corporate fixed pricing.
      I HATE the idea of a million and one publishers producing utter rubbish by the bucketload, and then making you pay for add ins, without which, their game is severely restricted – give me a handful of AAA quality titles over these ‘App’ style games any day (oooohhhh, buy a new colour for 99p! Wow – idiots).
      Rant over :)
      FTR, I currently on a PS3 and a Vita. Previous consoles have included PSP, Original Xbox, Dreamcast, Mega Drive, Master System and an Atari 2600 :) so I’ve been gaming for a long time and have poured a lot of money into these companies, without feeling the need to be fed piecemeal for ‘bits’ (hahah) of their games – this will bite them hard.

      Comment posted on 18/05/2012 at 16:55.
  2. Death_In_Flamez
    Member
    Since: Feb 2011

    Simply disgraceful. That is all that needs to be said.

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 09:38.
  3. stillirise6257
    Since: Jan 1970

    Id still beat everyone online with my slower car, my lighter gun and my absence from your ‘trophy-less’ free level. Plus my extra tenner will buy me a 6 month old game to play through which i was not sure about but gives me a good ole slap in the biggin for being a great cheap purchase

    So…

    Stuff your DLC :D

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 09:38.
    • Bilbo_bobbins
      Member
      Since: Jun 2009

      well said sir. well said.

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:06.
    • hazelam
      Member
      Since: Feb 2009

      what on earth is a “slap in the biggin”?

      on second thoughts, i’m not sure i want to know.

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:08.
      • stillirise6257
        Since: Jan 1970

        lol a slap in the face :D

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:01.
      • hazelam
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        oh, i was thinking of something totally different. ^_^

        Comment posted on 12/05/2012 at 11:28.
  4. Youles
    Member
    Since: Feb 2011

    It’s a shame £40 rarely buys you a full game with all the trimmings these days. As I only buy games I really like, and want all the content (since I really like it), it just means I’ll buy fewer games if I have to spend £60 instead of £40 which means another developer loses a sale.

    Can we have a TSA Wall of Shame for people like him please :p

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 09:45.
    • element666
      Member
      Since: Mar 2012

      A wall of shame is agreat idea lol

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:00.
      • Youles
        Member
        Since: Feb 2011

        We could have that guy from Quantic Dream on there too, among others :)

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:05.
  5. Forrest_01
    Member
    Since: Jun 2009

    I understand it from a business point of view, but these sorts of comments should never find their way to the end consumer, as it’s just stupidly bad PR.

    I don’t think i know anyone that wouldn’t be a little ‘irked’ by reading this sort of thing – It also makes Mr Moore come off as just a bit cocky about the whole thing.

    As i said though, i think these sorts of comments should remain in a boardroom – I’m pretty sure he would even have support for his comments there.

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 09:57.
    • hazelam
      Member
      Since: Feb 2009

      you left out “of a” and added a y near the end of that second paragraph for some reason, but otherwise, yeah. ^_^

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:06.
      • Bilbo_bobbins
        Member
        Since: Jun 2009

        plus add “and a massive twat” to the end of that

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:08.
  6. hazelam
    Member
    Since: Feb 2009

    they’ll be selling you the start option on the menu next.

    you know, right now, i’m feeling really good about my new buy boycott of all ea games.

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:05.
    • Bilbo_bobbins
      Member
      Since: Jun 2009

      I’ve joined you today hazelam, thats it for me. No more EA games until they sort their act out.

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:07.
  7. The Lone Steven
    Never heard of him.
    Since: May 2010

    This is why gamers are starting to hate you EA.

    Yeah, because a good game will never make you any profits. Oh wait, it does. Look at the Witcher 2. Free DLC and i’m assuming a surge of sales on the PC was a result of that.

    I don’t want to buy a PSN card with a brand new game just to get the entire fecking thing! No, when i buy a game, i expect to get all of the game. On the first month that is.

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:09.
  8. Smallville2106
    Member
    Since: Feb 2011

    Shocked that they have let gamers hear/read these comments.
    Boycotting EA myself now.

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:18.
  9. Tuffcub
    On the naughty step.
    Since: Dec 2008

    Yes it is all about the money, everything is. Why is that a problem? Did anyone think EA, Activision and everyone else is in this game for hugs and puppies?

    Money makes the world go round. EA shouldnt hvae said this, but it’s true and frankly if you’re offended then you are bit of a petal.

    It’s business, no need to get offended, if you dont want the DLC dont buy it. Didnt stop MAss Effect 3 from being awesome (allegedly) did it? No.

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:31.
    • The Lone Steven
      Never heard of him.
      Since: May 2010

      But it annoys most gamers as they don’t get the entire game for the price that they paid for it on day 1. I have no problem with DLC being released after release but cutting out content and selling it back to us really pisses me off.

      I wish EA and co would follow the developer of Witcher 2 example of how to handle DLC.

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:37.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        You know Im seriously quitting writing anything. Which bit of “Its not cut from the game” did you not understand? You are WRONG.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:07.
      • The Lone Steven
        Never heard of him.
        Since: May 2010

        But if they have time to develop DLC before launch then why not include it in the final version of the game? It would prevent people from thinking that content has been cut from the game as we have no clue.

        If i were to sell you a bag of chips and then take 10% away only to sell it back to you, you would be pissed off.

        Plus attacking members in the comments. Real proffesional Tuffcub.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:25.
      • hazelam
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        that Prothean character and his storyline wasn’t cut from the game and turned into dlc?

        yeah right, and i’m the queen england.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:48.
      • cc_star
        Team TSA: Writer
        Since: Forever

        What your saying is that you’d happily pay the $80 upfront for the whole thing including the early DLC rather than just buying the game for $60 then make your own mind up about the early DLC?

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:48.
      • hazelam
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        queen OF england. >_<

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:48.
      • hazelam
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        and the game being mass effect 3.
        damn my rushed typing. >_<

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:49.
      • BigCheese
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        Tuffcub is right, just being a stressy little bitch about it. it’s technically not cut from the game, it’s content added on extra that should really have been just included. Using your bag of chips example, it wouldn’t be taking 10% of the chips away, more like charging silly amounts for salt, vinegar and ketchup for them. This is some God-awful PR.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:50.
      • hazelam
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        yeah but it’s becoming clear that more and more often it’s not extra content, it’s stuff that is demonstrably just cut from the main game.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:56.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        “why not include it in the final version of the game?” – because the final version of the game is the one without DLC. DLC is aditional content. Now you may think the “final” version of the game is the one with every bit of DLC, but its not. You dont need DLC, you can play a game wihtout DLC, that is why it is called “Additional contemt” – additional, not required.

        You have to put aside what you think you are entitled too and look at it from a business persepective like matey boy from EA is above.

        You may not like what he said, but if you owned EA wouldnt you like to make as much money as possible?

        Thast what businesses do – make money. Publishers are a business.

        Apologies for previous tone, have punched 5 kittens and stamped on 22 puppies. Feel better now.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:00.
      • nofi
        One for all.
        Since: Forever

        It’s not called ‘additional’. It’s called DLC. Downloadable Content.

        You’re right in some cases, but really, publishers are starting to flex their muscles with this, and it’s only going one way IMO.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:08.
      • hazelam
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        but TC, when they take content out to package as dlc, you’re not getting the whole game.

        and don’t do the whole “it’s not cut content” line, because more and more often that’s exactly what it is.
        not always, and thankfully still the minority of cases, but the practice is increasing.

        that goes way beyond business.

        businesses still need standards and rules.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:08.
      • The Lone Steven
        Never heard of him.
        Since: May 2010

        But i would avoid releasing DLC on day 1 and focus on making sure the game lives up to it’s hype. :)

        As i’ve said, DLC after release i have no problem with as it extends the life of the game. But it’s generally the content that has been cut out of the game that i have a major problem with. I admit i am a bit harsh on day 1 DLC sometimes.

        However i believe they should wait a month after release before releasing DLC as i think many of us wouldn’t mind it. Unless it turns out to be cut from the game. Like From Ashes or worse, locked to the disc. But they should not advertise a DLC pack a major part of the game before launch then annouce it as DLC. Like B:AC did.

        If it turn out that the DLC was developed after the game had been finished then i don’t mind it as long as it’s a decent price and has no major effect on the SP.

        I think this is one of those topics where we should agree to disagree. :)

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:13.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        A lot of these arguments are over definations. Im am sure publishers cut weaopons, skins etc from games and make them DLC all the time. That absoloutely happens, but they are trinkets – nice things that just make the game look better.

        If you want to pay for a new outfit for your character then thats your choice, you can play the game in the standard costume and not miss out.

        Large pieces of DLC such as levels are a different matter. Youc an tell when they’ve been swiped from the ful game – Batman for example, and I have sneaking suspiscion that the Deus Ex DLC was cut out.

        You also have to define WHEN the ‘full game’ is locked. For me, this is at the planning stage.

        Example: Developer plans 10 level game. At planning stage level 9 is cut and it is decided to make that DLC. The game is created and the ‘full game’ plays through levels 1-8 and 10, there is no obvious gaps in the story.

        Now is the game that gets published the “full game”? In my opinion it is. Level 9 was deigned to be DLC from the design stage.

        Now, if a developer goes and makes a ten level game, and then four weeks before publishing it decides to cut level 9 out the completed game and make you pay for it, then that’s bad and naughty and needs a good slap.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:14.
      • Vandix
        Member
        Since: Mar 2009

        DLC development is seperate from the main game. The main reason for first day DLC is easy. People who buy Special Editions or Collector Edition want something for there money too. Or pre-order bonuses. These are the reason day one DLC excist. If day one DLC should be included (according to some people here in the comments) ALL promo’s, bonuses and Special Editions will be gone.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:16.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        Of course if you all stopped buying the day one DLC they wouldn’t make it, the concept would make a loss so it would be scrapped. Businesses dont like to lose money.

        But as the public lap up day one DLC, then.. well, you’ve dug your own hole really.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:20.
      • Scythegpd
        Member
        Since: Jul 2010

        So when do you draw the line? Please clarify how you identify what is additional content and what is “cut from the game”.
        You dodn’t believe the ME3 day1 DLC was cut from the game (despite the character model being on the disk and leaked dialogue options months before the release showing interaction with the character), yet this character is a focal point of the entire game mythology from about the first 10 minutes of the first game. So let’s look at other prior games and apply a similar logic:

        God of War 3 – You start with only 1 blade of chaos (the other being damaged when your powers are stripped) and the game ends when you open pandoras box and fight Zeus the first time. The second blade and the future Zeus boss fights in are optional day+1 DLC
        Bioshock 1 – As soon as you get to the “Would you kindly” reveal the game ends, the rest is released as day 1 DLC to “expand on the story ”.
        Metal Gear Solid 4 – The metal gear mk2 is optional. Additionally the Rex vs Ray scene ends after the Raiden fight and the next act starts (with Raiden “catching” the ship). You can download the Rex escape/fight and mg mk2 as optional day1 DLC.
        Batman: Arkham Asylum – The entire Ra’s-Al-Ghul section is removed as it’s not important, but don’t worry, you can buy it on day+1 to find out how Batman cured his illness (if you don’t we can all theorise that he took some of the cure when he finally got his hands on it, which sorted everything out).

        All of the above could have been done without damaging the game itself and there’s a thousand other possibilities and potential examples. Now they didn’t do the above however the impression I get from your replies is all they had to do was say “this was developed with a separate budget” and that’s fine. So we then get to a point where fighting games are released with 4 characters with the rest as “optional DLC day 1 developed with a separated budget”. And racing games have 2 cars and 3 tracks with the rest as “optional DLC day1 developed with a separate budget”. And action games that are only 3 levels long with “optional day 1 DLC developed with a separate budget”. Hell, why don’t they just sell games by chapter, you can get the first and the last, to find out how the story begins and ends as that’s all that counts, all the rest are “developed on a separate budget and available as optional day 1 DLC”

        I’m just interested in finding out how you separate between what is game critical and what is perfectly fine as it was “part of a separate budget”. Are you saying that you’re fine if they set an £80m budget for a game, then go “actually, let’s make the game budget £60m and then treat that other £20m as a separate budget for day 1 DLC (optional of course)”?
        I’m fine with DLC if it’s not canon to the story. Catwoman? Fine, I played it (got the collectors edition), it adds nothing to Batmans journey. Zaeed/Kasumi? Sure no problems, it doesn’t actually add anything to Shepards story, nor does it impact on the universe much.
        However when they start cutting out characters that are critical to the universe/story (e.g. a frikken living Prothean, a race considered to be extinct for thousands of years and that has been central to the entire universe/storyline since the first 10 minutes of the first game) while giving you bog-standard new characters (James, generic grunt template 1)? Did James add anything more than Javik? What critical plot aspect centered around him? And they apparently had the budget to spend mo-capping, recording and including Diana bloody Allers in the main game. I would have been perfectly happy with useless characters who add nothing like James/Diana as day 1 DLC as they add nothing to the universe or game but no, they have the budget for them in the main game but the prothean is part of a “separate budget for DLC”? Strange that, the character focal to the entire storyline/universe since the start of the first game is “part of a separate DLC budget” but they have available budget in the main game to include pointless characters like James/Diana? What the f***?
        If you believe that then I have this great contact, he’s a Nigerian prince and for a small fee to help him move his billions out of the country he’ll give you a cut of the total. Then you’ll be able to retire a rich man

        So tell me, where do YOU draw the line? Should they start setting game budgets at £10m and day1 DLC budgets at £70m? After all, that falls into your “it’s part of a separate DLC budget” argument. Yes that’s an extreme example but when do you consider them as taking the proverbial? At what point do you change from “this is fine” to “I’m buying a shell of a game and having to pay extra to fill it out”? Because sure at the moment things aren’t bad but this is the start of a slippery slope which will only get steeper the more it carries on, and pretty soon you WILL find yourself in that position wondering “What the hell happened?”

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:30.
      • LTG Davey
        andUandU
        Since: Aug 2008

        With regards to Scythegpd’s comment: TSA’s comment section needs a ‘like’ button, lol!

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:47.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        I promise this is the truth Scythegpd, but I had no idea ehat the MGS4 DLC and GOW DLC or the Bioshock DLC did. I have completed all three.. I didnt think anything was missing from the games, didnt notice any plots holes so.. I dont think I missed out. Anything in that DLC would be additional, not required.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:48.
      • Scythegpd
        Member
        Since: Jul 2010

        TC, I don’t think you fully read my comment. My point wasn’t that there was DLC (ther wasn’t), my poitn was where do you draw the line with DLC as a separate budget vs the full game. The I used examples of released games to show how this could have been done.

        You said you played MGS4? Ok, now imagine they’de released MGS4 however without the MG MK2 and where there’s the Raiden/Vamp fight and it cuts straight to Raiden stopping the ship. On day 1 they release DLC, that DLC containing access to the MG MK2 and the “bonus content, escape shadow moses in Rex then fight Ray!!!”.
        GoW as well, which you’ve said you played. What if you had started the game with one chain working and ended the game after the first Zeus fight and opening Pandoras box (with him laughing). Then on day1 a DLC was released unlocking the second chain and “an epic follow-up to Kratos’ story” wityh everything following that.

        So, considering you’ve played those games (which included that content), would you still feel you had the full game experience if they had had a DLC option like the ones I provided above? Would you be fine with them if they said “these were developed as part of a separate DLC budget”? Think back on the games you played and how they would have been without that content, and apply the reasoning you’re using now to see how you would have felt about the games if they did what I suggest above. Still feel like it’s good business practice?

        Any as an addendum, you often comment about how businesses work and how they’re just out to make money. That’s one area where I have a lot of knowledge in, as I work in the field of finance and am CIMA qualified. And I’ll say that the focus on purely moeny, money, money and nothing else is an outdated view, it has been shown that companies htat focus on their customers first and foremost are more successful than those that focus on profiteering, because at the end of the day it’s customers that make you money. Happy customers = more money.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 13:12.
      • cc_star
        Team TSA: Writer
        Since: Forever

        @thelonesteven & others.

        So, include all this early downloadable content in the initial disc/digital release… But charge $80 for it not $60 is what you’re saying?

        (or whatever pricepoint the game is, just add a third to it)

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 13:49.
      • Scythegpd
        Member
        Since: Jul 2010

        Here’s my controversial view – I think games are under-priced. I remember buying games in-store new for my PS2 for £40 (RRP £45). I’m currently buying games in-store new for £40 (RRP £45, unless you’re CoD). That’s notwithstanding buying online (cheaper) and the massive price drops post-launch (I got both my PS3 and 360 copies of ME3 2 weeks or so after launch for, collectively, pretty much what it would have cost to get one of them new).
        However in that time game budgets have inflated massively, gamer expectations have increased and demands are higher. People wax lyrical about how “gameplay > graphics” however look at how often graphics are criticised if they’re anything less than stellar. And people are expecting another leap in the (soon to be announced) next gen of consoles. People also expect longer and longer games, complaining about an 8 hour campaign (5-6 if you speed through on infant mode) yet I remember PS1 and earlier games that I could blast through in less than 4 hours, they were that short (of course then you get the great comparisons of “but look at how long rpg X is” … well duh, that’s an RPG, not a shooter or adventure).
        So basically gamers want bigger, longer, better looking games with more content and more bells and whistles … all requiring a much larger budget … but at the same time expecting retail prices to remain the same or even reduce.
        Sorry but gaming isn’t a necessity, it’s a luxury, if budgets have doubled count yourself lucky that game prices haven’t doubled, however I feel that instead of keeping £40 odd price-tags and short-shifting on content they should increase the price to reflect the increase budgets. I find it amazing with all the demands and requirements of gamers these days game prices haven’t increased proportionally. So it’s either:
        1 – Increase game prices
        2 – Cut down games and release DLC
        3 – Create and release “low budget” games that don’t conform to current expectations
        Unfortunately it’s lose-lose. Currently companies are erring towards number 2 (or in some cases 3) which is making gamers incensed, if they did option 1 gamers would be incensed. Personally I prefer option 1 (then again I also buy special editions and didn’t think twice about picking up the Gears3 Epic edition and Uncharted3 Explorer edition weeks apart) however gamers will have to either lower their standards or expect some compromise.
        You can’t expect bigger budget games without ways being introduced to recoup those bigger budgets … and the fact that it’s taken this long for game companies to start being blatant about their methods is, personally, astounding.
        However there is one thing I can guarantee … no matter what they do gamers will bitch about it. Because we’re not in the entitlement era, where everybody seems to expect the world on a plate for no cost and no effort.

        However that aside, what I dislike, using ME3 as an example, is where they can allocate budget to superfluous characters and inclusions (e.g. James/Diana) yet then create Javik and say “that was part of a separate DLC budget”. If they are going to go the DLC route keep the critical stuff and make the superfluous DLC. Do you think anyone would really be complaining if James/Diana were DLC and Javik came on the disc? Probably not because the latter has far more relevance and criticality to the Mass Effect cannon/universe. However taking what is possibly the most important new Mass Effect character since Shepard and saying “that was developed separately thus will be DLC” just smacks of a cynical “we know this is what everyone would want so we’ll pull the important stuff out and include crap filler instead” ploy. And that’s what pisses me off about the ME3 scenario, they could have done any number of superfluous things as DLC, James/Diana or N7 missions off the top of my head. But no, they decide instead to take the PROTHEAN and box them off instead. And what also worries me is the progression:
        ME1 – Here’s the game, enjoy
        ME2 – Here’s the game, if you buy it new here’s an online pass and free DLC character to say thanks for buying new. If you buy it second hand and want any DLC you’ll need to buy the online pass (which I agree with completely by the way)
        ME3 – Here’s the game, if you buy it new here’s an online pass. Oh and here’s a paid DLC character on day 1 … did we mention that character was a prothean?
        What’s next? ME4 has an online pass AND a DLC character AND additional DLC N7 missions on day 1? Are we going to get to the point where you pay for the game and you get Shepard and the main missions, with the rest of your team and any side missions being individual day 1 DLC content?
        And that’s the most worrying thing about this trend, where does it end? We know how it’s started but it’s a veeeerrrryy slippery slope.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 14:46.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        Ah wwell that wil be me being a Risk Manager and not giving a shit about customers and just wanting to maximise profits :)

        As for you points, I can see how making up hypothetical DLC helps the argument (no wonder i hadnt heard of it)

        “So, considering you’ve played those games (which included that content), would you still feel you had the full game experience if they had had a DLC option like the ones I provided above?”

        In your examples you are cutting scenes from the orginal game which I am totally against.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 14:49.
      • Scythegpd
        Member
        Since: Jul 2010

        “In your examples you are cutting scenes from the orginal game which I am totally against”

        And where is the disctinction between this and the ME3 scenario? You believe the DLC was created using a “separate DLC budget” because EA told you so?
        And that’s my point, where you you draw the line between “cutting scenes from the original game” and “thats from a separate day 1 DLC budget so that’s ok”?
        Because where we’ll end up going down that path is a bare-bones original game with everything else being from a “DLC creation budget”.

        To me there’s no difference between:
        ME3 – Cutting the prothean character and selling it separately as DLC on release
        MGS4 – Cutting the Rex vs Ray fight and selling it separately as DLC on release

        Yes, MGS 4 released with the Rex vs Ray fight however if it HADN’T (talking rhetorical here), if Konami had said “this is additional content that was created using a budget set aside for DLC, separate from the main games budget”, would you have had the same supportive viewpoint as you do now?

        No, you admit you’re totally against cutting content from the main game. And in that case you know using hindsight that it was cut. but what if they did it at launch?
        In which case, what supporting evidence do you have to show that the most important new character in the ME universe since the introduction of Shepard, the last surviving member of a race extinct for 50000 years, a member of a race that has been central to the ME story since the start of the first game, a character which was shown to be on the disk already (character model at least) and where leaked scripts show the character interacting with the crew in the main game, was NOT cut out of the game in a cynical marketing ploy to remove a critical team member that they know all ME fans would want and would thus pay extra for?
        That’s my point, you say you are against cutting content from the main game to support DLC but I’m still to see any evidence showing that a prothean team member was nothing more than an “aside developed using a separate DLC budget”. Superfluous characters such as James or Diana I could see as DLC characters, Javik is just too central to the ME universe for me to believe that his creation and include was “an aside created outside the mane game”.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 15:10.
      • Forrest_01
        Member
        Since: Jun 2009

        @Scythegpd – To be honest with you, i would prefer that they do things as they are now rather than up the base price as you suggested. At least with things as they are now i can pay what i want & play the game i want – With an increased price, i am seemingly paying extra for something that i might not necessarily want to play.

        Don’t get me wrong, i appreciate the work that goes into a game, but i don’t want to be out of pocket for it.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 15:42.
      • Vandix
        Member
        Since: Mar 2009

        Scythegpd, in my opinion the ME3: From the ashes DLC is not a big part of the story of ME3. It only gives a back story about the protheans.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 16:12.
      • Scythegpd
        Member
        Since: Jul 2010

        Vandix – Different strokes for different folks. I found the inclusion of Javik to be hugely beneficial to the game vs not having him in. I took him on every mission, hit interactions when fighting the geth, his commentary on Thessia and Cerberus base, his discussions about “races that showed potential”, particularly the conversation with Liara after Thessia, I just felt the game would have been far less without him. It’s not just the one mission to recruit him, it was the sum of the whole, having him on the team for other missions.
        He certainly added a LOT more than James or Diana. And that’s my point, if they could dedicate resources to including James and Diana and “DLC resources” to Javik, they could sure as hell have done it the other way round. And IMO Javik added way more to ME3 than either of those characters. If they had made James and Diana the day 1 DLC I would not be having this conversation now, it’s the cynical way they pulled the critical character out and included fluff characters instead that boiled my piss.

        Forrest – I’m not saying I WANT games to be more expensive. I’m just saying I’m surprised they haven’t increased a lot more and that they’re going to have to recoup costs somehow to meet gamers demands. And I don’t mind if that’s via non-essential DLC and options but what I take exception to is when they pull things that SHOULD be in the full game. In my experience and my opinion, ME3 is a lesser game without Javik. So if they’re planning on pulling important characters and scenes from games to sell as additional DLC to fund the additional dev costs, that’s when I take exception. I’d rather pay more for a “full” game than pay current prices for a piecemeal game where I get nickel-and-dimed to get the entire experience. If it’s superfluous DLC then fine, but don’t make it central to the game universe.
        As I’ve said multiple times, if the DLC had been for James and Diana I would have had NO problem at all with it. But no, they dedicated game budget to those wastes and chose to make the prothean DLC. James added nothing to my ME3 playthrough, Javik added a substantial amount, both were day 1 characters, only 1 of them I had to pay for. And who’se more important to the ME3 universe and Shepards story, the last surviving Prothean or generic grunt template 1 + waxy hamster-cheeked reporter?

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 16:50.
      • Forrest_01
        Member
        Since: Jun 2009

        Fair enough i suppose, but look at it this way – If the DLC was for generic grunt template 1 + waxy hamster-cheeked reporter, do you think anyone would have bought it?

        They know that people would pay for the last surviving Prothean, so they charged for it.

        I should also point out that i do not support these practices at all, just that from a business point of view, generic grunt template 1 + waxy hamster-cheeked reporter will never sell, whereas the last surviving Prothean definitely will.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 17:02.
      • hazelam
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        hey scythe, you’re stealing my thing.

        wall-o-text is tm zelamy corp. ^_^

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 17:43.
    • Forrest_01
      Member
      Since: Jun 2009

      As i mentioned above, i completely get it from a business perspective, i just don’t know how or why they let these comments get to the consumers.

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:37.
    • Bilbo_bobbins
      Member
      Since: Jun 2009

      tuffcub, are you happy at being ripped off then? ;-)

      if they are giving out dlc at launch, then they should of put it into the game, its exactly that reason people are annoyed. Plus the fact he is boasting about making lots of money from ME3. Yes its a business, we all get that, but to go out publicly and wipe the custard pie in gamers faces is not the right way to behave.

      Would I like my car mechanic to tell me to my face that he put two new brake pads on because they were worn out…when they weren’t, and then tell me its good business…not I fucking wouldn’t.

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:04.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! Thats it. I quit.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:08.
      • colmshan1990
        Member
        Since: Apr 2009

        Why on Earth should they put it in the game just because they finished it at launch?
        It makes sense for most teams to finish DLC before a game is released, simply because the development team could drift apart or move onto another game after release.
        Why should they give it away free just because they completed it quickly and on schedule?
        They could just keep it and release it 6 months later, but then that’s 6 months lost sales, while people are busy trading in their game within a couple of weeks because of offers by retailers.
        Day 1 DLC means they can sell DLC to those who trade quickly so they can get the next big game too.

        No need to get butt hurt over it.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:46.
      • hazelam
        Member
        Since: Feb 2009

        even if it is a separate budget and team, and not just cut out from it, that’s still resources taken away from the main game.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 11:52.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        Yes it does Hazelam. And if they added lots more developers and money youd get and even better game.

        So your point is.. what? More people and money make better games? yes that’s usually the case.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:17.
      • Bilbo_bobbins
        Member
        Since: Jun 2009

        ha ha, tc calm down I’m playing with you. What I am saying is that they shouldn’t come out and say here is your day one DLC for £20. They should wait and keep the game fresh a few months down the line, and if people want that, they can pay. Releasing day one DLC to me and many others looks like they are charging you for content that is finished, so therefore should be in the original game.

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 14:06.
    • Sympo
      Member
      Since: Aug 2009

      I don’t mind DLC and I don’t care if its cut from the main game. LOOK the simple thing is that its a choice whether or not you like the game.. I think DLC is a nice bonus but only the best ones not the unlocks and over-priced content though I still like the Time Savers stuff its a nice thing if I can’t be arsed to unlock everything (again)

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 14:25.
  10. gazzagb
    Master of speling mitakse
    Since: Feb 2009

    Valve are the only publishers these days that aren’t trying to rip off their customers, just look at the sales on Steam, and how much they value their customers. That’s how publishers need to work.

    Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 10:45.
    • LTG Davey
      andUandU
      Since: Aug 2008

      I would personally add CD Projekt Red to that list too. Terrific devs who actually value their customers and released a nice amount of extra content for Witcher 2 without charging a penny for it :)

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 12:15.
      • mad_mac_hl
        Member
        Since: Feb 2012

        Seconded, the way CD Projekt Red support their game is excellent. Reminds me, I must be due for a replay of Witcher 2 :D

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 13:09.
      • LTG Davey
        andUandU
        Since: Aug 2008

        :D probably the only RPG I’ve played through more than once!

        Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 14:04.
    • Burgess_101
      Member
      Since: May 2009

      CD Projekt are the best!

      Comment posted on 11/05/2012 at 17:43.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Latest Comments

TSA Meets

  • None today