A short open letter to the video game industry

[fade]

I still don't understand the difference. The only distinction is when they decided to sell you the extra piece of the game. They both represent additional work over what they sold you. Of course it's a money grab. They're a private company. Selling the disc in the first place was a money grab. I fail to follow why it matters when they produced the product they've decided is additional. If I'm the seller I can call whatever I want the base model and whatever I want the extra.

Okay, maybe the problem is semantics. Maybe they shouldn't package the "DLC" with the game, but sell in under different packaging and call it the "Premium", "Professional", or "Ultimate" edition, instead of calling it "DLC". Then that pesky D would be gone, but the end result would be absolutely the same. No one seems to have a problem with software being sold that way. In fact, they line up outside of stores for the super-gold-deluxe version. And while we're at it, I might as well note that those versions of Windows 7 are all mostly identical on disc. The only thing that differs is the color of the label, the splash screen, and what the product key unlocks. Is MS guilty of the same then? For that matter, it goes beyond games. I can guarantee that the car you drive, the tv you watch, and the cellphone you use all have some of the "premium" features on the product, but they're disabled at your price point.

As for the last line there, as I said, they didn't sell it to you. That's my entire point. They sold you the part they explicitly sold you. They didn't sell you the other part.

It seems like you guys might be mistaking my logic argument for siding with the game companies. I don't have a stake either way. I'm simply saying it seems like an awfully arbitrary line. You want to buy additional content either way (and yes, it is additional, even if you have the byte code already in your possession, you do not have the license to use it--which is what you buy), it just matters where and when it was produced? It was additional work on the company's part either way over what you purchased, unless they've developed self-programming games.

 

[Jay]

I still don't understand the difference. The only distinction is when they decided to sell you the extra piece of the game. They both represent additional work over what they sold you. Of course it's a money grab. They're a private company. Selling the disc in the first place was a money grab. I fail to follow why it matters when they produced the product they've decided is additional. If I'm the seller I can call whatever I want the base model and whatever I want the extra.

Okay, maybe the problem is semantics. Maybe they shouldn't package the "DLC" with the game, but sell in under different packaging and call it the "Premium", "Professional", or "Ultimate" edition, instead of calling it "DLC". Then that pesky D would be gone, but the end result would be absolutely the same. No one seems to have a problem with software being sold that way. In fact, they line up outside of stores for the super-gold-deluxe version. And while we're at it, I might as well note that those versions of Windows 7 are all mostly identical on disc. The only thing that differs is the color of the label, the splash screen, and what the product key unlocks. Is MS guilty of the same then? For that matter, it goes beyond games. I can guarantee that the car you drive, the tv you watch, and the cellphone you use all have some of the "premium" features on the product, but they're disabled at your price point.

As for the last line there, as I said, they didn't sell it to you. That's my entire point. They sold you the part they explicitly sold you. They didn't sell you the other part.

It seems like you guys might be mistaking my logic argument for siding with the game companies. I don't have a stake either way. I'm simply saying it seems like an awfully arbitrary line. You want to buy additional content either way (and yes, it is additional, even if you have the byte code already in your possession, you do not have the license to use it--which is what you buy), it just matters where and when it was produced? It was additional work on the company's part either way over what you purchased, unless they've developed self-programming games.

 

[Shegokigo]

If you still dont' get it, after I pretty much put it in black and white, you're not going to get it.

Needless to say, it's wrong, it's a money grab and they're doing it because they can.

 

[fade]

No what you said had almost nothing to do with my complaint. You addressed something else entirely. You did not address why this was "wrong", only saying again that it was because it was.

As to the second, I addressed that, too. Of course it's a money grab. As was the original sale. As is any add-on. You guys just don't like when they're selling you more stuff. That's black and white.

I still think it's because you don't like that it's called "downloadable", when you would gladly pay the same premium if they called it that instead of "downloadable".
Added at: 20:53
Let me put it a different way: by what right do you expect that that additional content is yours? "Hostage" implies that it belongs in your hands for some reason. What reason is that? You didn't pay for it. You paid for the license to use the base game, regardless of actual disc content. This is again how software has worked since it became commercial.

 

[figmentPez]

Selling the disc in the first place was a money grab.

I disagree on this point. At least, I disagree that the selling of games is inherently a money grab. Business does not, and should not, have to be solely about making as much money as possible. Businesses should be about providing goods and services in a fair exchange. There are many many successful businesses that do not sell their products/services for as much as they possibly can, and continue to succeed precisely because they don't try and wring every last cent out of their customers.

I don't care about your "downloadable vs premium" argument. As most of my games are completely downloads anyway. I don't care if the extra mission is on the disc or an actual download. If it's ready with the rest of the game, then sell it with the game. Chances are the game is over-priced as it is. If you want to make more money later, then finish your damn game first, and work on the extra stuff afterwards. With the shocking lack of polish on many games out there, I think this is a perfectly valid complaint. Working on making more money before ensuring your first product works correctly is irresponsible and insulting to the consumer.

Don't even get me started on system-exclusive levels that never make it to other platforms (Joker challenge maps as a PS3 exclusive in B:AA anyone?) Also I think selling premium editions with in-game knick-knacks for $10 extra is absurd, but I'm fine with that as long as it's clear what is contained in each version.

 

[Zappit]

What bothers me more is the "locked" content in some games. The data is already there, but you'll need to unlock it at a certain time in a certain place - anyone who's ever played a Pokemon game knows what I mean. I used an AR device to hack the bonus missions in Dragon Quest XI because I could never get the wi-fi on my DS to work. It freakin' doubles the size of the game, and I can't have access unless I go online to get it? That ain't right. That's like buying half a candy bar for half price.

The excuse is always about extending the lifespan of a game. If it's good, people will keep playing (or replaying) it. Right? I mean, that's how it's supposed to work.

 

[fade]

But Pez, my premium argument still works with your bolded statement. I just threw in the download issue to make the point that the argument I was being presented was essentially one of temporal and spatial location of the "extension". It still applies to "gold" and "ultimate" editions. That stuff is ready at shipment time, but they still charge extra for it.

Maybe the objective of the original release was artistic or something less economic, but in reality, they wanted to make money off the game. I love doing Fade, but if it came to selling it, I surely would negotiate up as high as possible.

I need to stop here and make something crystal clear, because it pisses my wife and my real life friends off to no end when I do it without explicitly warning. I may actually agree with the OP. I'm not sure yet. But I friggin' love to debate, and I often take the opposite side for the hell of it. Especially when something in a declarative statement makes me uneasy. I guess my original issue was with the word "wrong", which is so loaded.

 

[figmentPez]

But Pez, my premium argument still works with your bolded statement. I just threw in the download issue to make the point that the argument I was being presented was essentially one of temporal and spatial location of the "extension". It still applies to "gold" and "ultimate" editions. That stuff is ready at shipment time, but they still charge extra for it.

You're missing my point. First, Gold and Ultimate editions usually have a few more art assets, they don't have more missions. (Please, cite one game where a deluxe edition has more gameplay on the day of release). Second, if a game company has spent time creating missions for a deluxe edition, while the basic game is still flawed, they have failed. They spread themselves too thin for the sake of money. It doesn't matter how they charge extra for those missions, if their work isn't done on time then they haven't done it right.

Okay, assume that they did get the game right, with both the core game and the bonus missions being complete and functional. If the extra missions are truly part of the game, then they deserve to be part of the game for everyone. If they're not really part of the game, then why would someone want to pay extra for something that doesn't fit in with the rest of the experience? The only way I can see this making sense is if single-player and multi-player were sold seperately, or in a bundle, and I'm not aware of any games that have done that.

Also, there's the issue of "hidden costs". The deluxe edition package says the price on the box. The day-one DLC version hides the price. Certainly it's possible to research ahead and find out what the real cost is, but people are bad at math. (I don't mean they can't add, I mean dividing up costs lessens the impact and makes it harder to grasp the full price, even if adding things up is easy.)

Maybe the objective of the original release was artistic or something less economic, but in reality, they wanted to make money off the game. I love doing Fade, but if it came to selling it, I surely would negotiate up as high as possible.

Making money off of something is NOT the same as a "money grab". I won't tell you how to market your work, but if you do sell it, expect to loose a lot of goodwill over time if you're always pushing for the most money you can get with every sale, rather than trying to find a truly equitable price that pleases both you and your customers in the long term. It's not good business to have the customer resentful of how much they had to pay, even if you managed to get them to pay it.

Video game companies are currently acting like they're a limited monopoly, similar to phone companies. They're nickel and diming their customers because they think they've got them hooked. To a certain extent, they're right. But no one likes phone companies, and they hate all the hidden fees and bogus surcharges. The longer customers stay disgruntled with video game publishers, the worse the fall-out is going to be when they finally hit their breaking point.

 

[Shegokigo]

You're picking on a word that has no signifigance to the issue. Fine. You are still dodging the simple fact that developers are now purposefully creating extra content, during regular game development, to give to different publishers and other items to be sold later. They're not new/added content, they're original content that was taken a piece off to purposlly sell later.

Jay nailed it with his baguette example. You're just choosing to take the extreme opposite side of the conversation for the heck of it.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I understand where Fade comes from. It's a matter of looking at it from the perspective of the developer, vs the perspective of the consumer. The consumer wants as much as they can get, for as little as they have to pay. The developer wants to make as much money as possible, because making games ain't cheap, and pricing a game higher than $50-$60 is seen as unusually high and detrimental to sales. So rather than charge extra for a game, they break up the price point. It's a marketing strategy more than anything, but it does leave a bad taste in some people's mouthes.

Personally, I look at it on a game by game basis. The games I'm interested enough in buying are usually ones I'd buy DLC for anyway, and I don't mind paying more for a game if I view it as being worth the price.

 

[Vrii]

You're just choosing to take the extreme opposite side of the conversation for the heck of it.

He told you that, quite clearly. Calling him on it like it damns everything he's saying is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Shegokigo]

He has not once said he's doing it for the heck of it, so far he's stating that he believes it completely and can't understand the other view.

 

[Frank]

Who's to say, though, that the day one DLC wasn't made after the game was already pressed onto discs, packaged and sent to retailers?

Because that DLC you have to download. When I'm paying 6 dollars for PREMIUM CHARACTERS DAY ONE SUPER DLC and all I download is a 64 kb code, obviously it's already on the disc.

 

[Vrii]

I need to stop here and make something crystal clear, because it pisses my wife and my real life friends off to no end when I do it without explicitly warning. I may actually agree with the OP. I'm not sure yet. But I friggin' love to debate, and I often take the opposite side for the hell of it. Especially when something in a declarative statement makes me uneasy. I guess my original issue was with the word "wrong", which is so loaded.

Try reading before you post, Shego.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Debate is not saying "I don't understand" on and on until the other person gets frustrated and believes you cannot comprehend what's being said.

 

[Vrii]

I guess Shego isn't the only one reading the first sentence of each post and ignoring the rest, then. I don't agree with what Fade's arguing, but to suggest that he isn't making counterpoints is...pretty baffling, actually.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I guess Shego isn't the only one reading the first sentence of each post and ignoring the rest, then. I don't agree with what Fade's arguing, but to suggest that he isn't making counterpoints is...pretty baffling, actually.

I suggest it and accuse him of it.

As for the last line there, as I said, they didn't sell it to you. That's my entire point. They sold you the part they explicitly sold you. They didn't sell you the other part.

Read this. Especially that third sentence. It has nothing to do with what people are saying to him; it has to do with what he wants to say, like there's some other argument he's involved in that we can't see because it doesn't exist, so he's using the responses for that argument in this one.

Bluntly: what Fade is talking about is not what the others are talking about. Maybe his "I don't understand" is generated by this, or maybe it's generated by his hunger for debate, but that's why people are giving up actually discussing it with him. I don't think it's a stretch when others are trying to get someone to understand something and then they get frustrated when that person doesn't want to understand. I don't bother with shit like that myself.

 

[Jay]

Honestly, I rarely respond to Fade because I can't tell where he's coming from, where's he's going and don't have the patience for it.

As far as the issue goes, I'll never ever abide with a Day 1 DLC. I think 2 weeks need to pass by before a DLC is considered "acceptable". View Baguette Theory for more details.

 

[phil]

I get what fade is saying, and agree to a point. It is talking about something different than the OP but still something that's been brought up in this thread.

 

[Shegokigo]

I guess Shego isn't the only one reading the first sentence of each post and ignoring the rest, then. I don't agree with what Fade's arguing, but to suggest that he isn't making counterpoints is...pretty baffling, actually.

I'd say "You're new here, so you probably don't understand" but you're not....

 

[Vrii]

I have a bad habit of approaching threads and discussion as if both sides are talking rationally, instead of filtering everything through the grudges and disdain they've built up over the years. I know it's stupid of me, but it lets me feel like there's something to be gained through reading and participating beyond the occasional tidbit of interesting info.

 

[Necronic]

You know actually it's probably far simpler/cheaper to build the expansions in from the beginning. And it's not like it doesn't cost the company extra money to make that content, there are extra developer hours going to it. They've just changed how they have delivered it. Either way of course I don't care because I have enough sense and self control to not buy games from companies that do things I don't like.

Also....

if a game company has spent time creating missions for a deluxe edition, while the basic game is still flawed, they have failed. They spread themselves too thin for the sake of money

That's like every game ever.

 

[Chibibar]

I think it is matter of perspective.

Lets say Game A is being developed and release day 1 WITH 3 DLC.
Lets say 2 DLC are cosmetic (i.e. different helmets, armors, weapons but not a game changer)
the 3rd DLC is a new character which change gameplay mechanics.
Lets say ALL three DLC are pre-loaded to the disc and you have to pay to unlock

Developer's perspective (this is a guess)
They have a core team developing the game. They hire extra members to produce the extra content. Lets say Gamestop paid for DLC1 for exclusive and BestBuy pays for the other DLC2. This is legit since the company pays for and none of the core team work on it (since they are paid in full by the company) the 3rd DLC was created by another team as an add-on to enhance the game.

Customer's perspective (this is what I think happen)
All content came on the disc. This means that a single team (large team) work on the core and 3rd DLC. The developers think they can gouge money out of customers cause the 3rd DLC will really make a difference to gameplay. The customer is pissed since they were developed at the same time. To me this is wrong IMO.

Customer's perspective (example)
Lets say the original StarCraft came out today and the MEDIC class is on the disc BUT you have to pay extra to unlock it. But in reality that class was develop and RELEASE much later as a new expansion. Would you be upset? since many customer would think the medic class was created at the same time and just cut out cause it really change gameplay (and it does with ability to heal units)

Now of course the company can get smart do it this way.
Create core game and lets say 3-4 DLCs at the same time. Release the core and wait 1-2 months and release DLC1 wait another and release DLC2. That way the customer doesn't think they are cheated. ALSO DO NOT PRELOAD THE DLC ON THE CORE RELEASE. Make it a downloadable and people won't have issue (we already states that DLC itself is not the issue, it is matter on how the DLC is presented is an issue and give illusion of being cheated initially)

 

[Espy]

Why on earth would anyone be upset that DLC was created while the game was being worked on? Thats just stupid.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Why on earth would anyone be upset that DLC was created while the game was being worked on? Thats just stupid.

Because then the developer is being GREEDY and trying to make MONEY and be SUCCESSFUL, and we hate that.

 

[Espy]

Because then the developer is being GREEDY and trying to make MONEY and be SUCCESSFUL, and we hate that.

If it's being designed as part of the game then cut out, unless it's for story reasons, then sure, it is just greedy and dumb, but if it's being designed AS dlc then I don't see how anyone could have any real problems with it.

 

[Chibibar]

If it's being designed as part of the game then cut out, unless it's for story reasons, then sure, it is just greedy and dumb, but if it's being designed AS dlc then I don't see how anyone could have any real problems with it.

right, but the problem is that we have developer's side and comsumer's perspective.

If the DLC is pre-loaded on the Disc I just bought (lease/rights/whatever, it is on the disk) and I need to pay EXTRA to unlock it. That is wrong because the perception of the customer would be the content was made at the same time and "cut out" to gouge more money.

Now if you take the said SAME content and release 1 month later, people wouldn't be upset.

It is all matter of perspective IMO.

 

[GasBandit]

I perceive DLC developed concurrently with the base game to be a diversion of resources, basically them telling me that I'm not getting a game with their full attention spent on it unless I also buy the DLC. It's different for DLC developed post-release, because then it's not taking away from the main release.

 

[Chibibar]

I perceive DLC developed concurrently with the base game to be a diversion of resources, basically them telling me that I'm not getting a game with their full attention spent on it unless I also buy the DLC. It's different for DLC developed post-release, because then it's not taking away from the main release.

That too. Cause to develop DLC takes a team. Of course this team could be the same part of the core (as I stated above) OR extra hand hired specifically for DLC (possible if contract DLC like Best Buy exclusive) but more than likely a division of the team (again what customer perceive.)

 

[Espy]

Yeah... still seems like of all the things to get ones panties in a wad over the big "when was the DLC worked on" argument is pretty silly. Unless they have just cut out parts of the main game I don't give a rip about when they made the DLC or if I have an unlock code or a download. I'm much more concerned with, is it good and is it worth the money.

 

[Azurephoenix]

I perceive DLC developed concurrently with the base game to be a diversion of resources, basically them telling me that I'm not getting a game with their full attention spent on it unless I also buy the DLC. It's different for DLC developed post-release, because then it's not taking away from the main release.

Bolded for emphasis...

Get the core game right and complete... THEN give us tasty extra content.

 

[Chibibar]

Yeah... still seems like of all the things to get ones panties in a wad over the big "when was the DLC worked on" argument is pretty silly. Unless they have just cut out parts of the main game I don't give a rip about when they made the DLC or if I have an unlock code or a download. I'm much more concerned with, is it good and is it worth the money.

True, but we will never know unless someone snitch on the devs. Since the DLC release the same time, most believe the team are divided. What makes it worst if the game is perceive to be broken (i.e. lots of bugs and gameplay issue) then the finger pointing gets worst cause instead of making a DLC (gouging money) via dividing the team (more than likely) they could have polish the game and push out the content without DLC.

The problem now-a-days is that a lot of game DO have a tons of bugs and sometimes even game breaking bug (i.e. can't play anymore) but they have time to make DLC at the same time???

 

[GasBandit]

That's the ticket. If there is even one tiny little thing wrong with the game, and they happened to concurrently develop DLC, it will make me boil. But if the game is in the exact same state and they didn't develop DLC until AFTER finishing the core game... I find myself more forgiving of flaws.

 

[Chibibar]

That's the ticket. If there is even one tiny little thing wrong with the game, and they happened to concurrently develop DLC, it will make me boil. But if the game is in the exact same state and they didn't develop DLC until AFTER finishing the core game... I find myself more forgiving of flaws.

Of course if any Devs read this thread And they are smart

Then the devs could make a DLC but HOLD OFF on release and release it like a month or two later as a full download (none of the "pre-load on the disc crap")
customer perception is important. If you gouge too much of your customer base, they are less likely to buy other games or wait for it.
(right now if I know there will be DLC or DLC potential, I wait until the GOTY version comes out now)

 

[Espy]

Get the core game right and complete...

That should just be the general rule anyway.