I completely agree with you... but we both know that's almost never the actual case in practice
A short open letter to the video game industry
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
C
Chibibar
Heck, Even the best of companies (even Bliz) can't crank out a perfect product (close but still)I completely agree with you... but we both know that's almost never the actual case in practice
Have you notice that software is the ONLY product that you can release with flaws and it is ok.
GasBandit
Staff member
And not just software, computer software. There's quite a bit that goes on in pc game development that would have the console tards descending on the dev house with pitchforks and torches in throngs.
C
Chibibar
True true.
D
Disconnected
so, just for the sake of asking, what if DLC is developed simultaneously by a separate team than that making the 'main game'? Does that make anyone equally as upset?
i.e. outsourced dev to make dlc content that can be released day 1 or later.
i.e. outsourced dev to make dlc content that can be released day 1 or later.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's grey, but it pisses me off... because even though an entirely separate team is developing it, you still have to pay that separate team money to make the DLC, which means at some point, Bobby Kotick chortled through his cuban cigar, as he leaned back on his pile of money, and said, "We have 50 million dollars to spend on developing World of BroStar... give our guys 40 million and outsource Play2CRUSH for the other 10 to make some DLC we can release day 1 as well."
As opposed to spending all 50 on the original game, and then seeing it do well, so then expending FURTHER resources on making DLC.
C
Chibibar
Problem is that we don't know if that is the case. I think the main "anger" comes from customer's perception.
Even if it is outsource, customer will think the company "carve" out part o the main game and made into DLC.
The exception would be Store specific DLC like Gamestop, Bestbuy, Walmart exclusives.
But if a DLC is available IN the game and need to pay more to unlock, that is what people get pissed
OR have to pre-order and get DLC "free" since it is already in the system (that still tick people off)
I think the best solution (at least to reduce the rage of customers) is to release the DLC 2 weeks after or at least a month. If their Core game is polish and fun, people WILL buy DLC.
Added at: 16:06
Agree. With the dawn of the instant information age, customer would be pretty peeve when a company spend say 120 million on game and carve like 50 mil for DLCs to be release at the same time.
wouldn't have just piss you off. Or even worst, the game is not as polish or complete without the DLC.
Necronic
Staff member
I'm not sure you guys are looking at this from a business perspective at all. Let's break it down.
Company has a new idea for a game. The marketing/research/devil people tell you what your demographic is and what your expected opening sales and continued shelf life are, giving you an estimated gross revenue from the game. From the gross revenue (say 50 million) the company decides to invest 40 million into development.
Development is going along, E3 preliminaries are good if not great, and hype is growing. At this point the dev team is fully focused on this task. The marketing devil people come back and tell the CEO that the game is going to meet expectations and will do well.
Now, before release, the CEO/decision maker types decide to invest another 15 million in development costs (as it's cheaper now when the dev team is fresh than to do it later) to develop extra content. The marketing devil people tell the CEO that this will not increase sales, but may increase shelf life. With the expected sales this will not cover the additional cost, however the devil people tell them that if they release it as a DLC it is likely to have a 50% adoption base, which will then give an additional 20 mil of gross revenue.
.....
Of course, if the CEO was a NICE GUY he would just include it in the game to begin with, and eat the 15 mil in development costs and the additional 5 mil of oppurtunity cost from not selling it as DLC. The company now has to lay off a nice chunk of its workers. Internal morale falls apart, and rumors of a selloff float around the market. The company is then sold to EA and put on a shelf next to the Ark of the Covenant. But don't worry, it's being examined by TOP MEN.
Company has a new idea for a game. The marketing/research/devil people tell you what your demographic is and what your expected opening sales and continued shelf life are, giving you an estimated gross revenue from the game. From the gross revenue (say 50 million) the company decides to invest 40 million into development.
Development is going along, E3 preliminaries are good if not great, and hype is growing. At this point the dev team is fully focused on this task. The marketing devil people come back and tell the CEO that the game is going to meet expectations and will do well.
Now, before release, the CEO/decision maker types decide to invest another 15 million in development costs (as it's cheaper now when the dev team is fresh than to do it later) to develop extra content. The marketing devil people tell the CEO that this will not increase sales, but may increase shelf life. With the expected sales this will not cover the additional cost, however the devil people tell them that if they release it as a DLC it is likely to have a 50% adoption base, which will then give an additional 20 mil of gross revenue.
.....
Of course, if the CEO was a NICE GUY he would just include it in the game to begin with, and eat the 15 mil in development costs and the additional 5 mil of oppurtunity cost from not selling it as DLC. The company now has to lay off a nice chunk of its workers. Internal morale falls apart, and rumors of a selloff float around the market. The company is then sold to EA and put on a shelf next to the Ark of the Covenant. But don't worry, it's being examined by TOP MEN.
C
Chibibar
Heh. Or the CEO could release it LATER and increase shelf life even longer! (i.e. release like a month or two later) that will bring another SURGE of sales people REQUIRE to buy the original who didn't before.
That's great and all. I don't have to like it nor do I have to spend money on it.
But as I've said, I don't really care about DLC, it's retailer exclusive pre-order shit that makes me angry.
C
Chibibar
Well, if best buy wanna drop X dollars to create an pre-order store only exclusive, we can't do much about that other than don't buy from Y store.
GasBandit
Staff member
YO HO FIDDLE DE DEE,
RIPPING ME OFF WITH RELEASE-DLC
THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK BUT COME ON, NIGGA, PLEASE
I'M GONNA PIRATE.
C
Chibibar
Necronic
Staff member
Ok, well what if that retailer exclusive deal allowed them to increase their projected earnings for the project which allowed them to develop even more resources to the core game?
Also gas that rhyme/rythm is not very good man. BUT I LIKES IT.
C
Chibibar
Also store exclusive main objective is to get people to come to their stores to buy stuff in their stores. So it is an investment for popular titles or game with great reviews.
If Best Buy have the "best exclusive" that people want, that just mean more people going to their store and buy it. The whole idea behind retailers is to get people IN the store. Once inside, there is a good chance people will buy other stuff.
If Best Buy have the "best exclusive" that people want, that just mean more people going to their store and buy it. The whole idea behind retailers is to get people IN the store. Once inside, there is a good chance people will buy other stuff.
Necronic
Staff member
There are really only two logical ways for it to go.
The exclusive deals are a pre-release investment by the developer to increase hype and shelf space generated by the store. This will increase projected earnings by the developer, presumably to a level higher than the cost of developing the extra pre-release items, otherwise there is zero point in doing this (why spend money on these pre-release deals if they don't increase revenue.)
Now, where does this money go? If they were smart and fast and loose, they would have planned this into their projections for a while and the extra sales revenue would have been built into the calculations of the investment quantities. If they were dumb or more conservative, they would reinvest the money into a future project (either an expansion or DLC for this game or a totally seperate game.)
So those are the two logical ways for it to go. Here are the other two possibilities:
The exclusive deals at retail outlets do not increase revenue but do increase development costs. They are net unprofitable and hurt the developer. In the long run the developer will either cease doing this or they are clearly run poorly enough that they will get hammered into the ground by competition.
Or, as a final possibility, they could be sitting in their cow hide chairs steepling their fingers together going "Muahaha the beautiful money" as a scantily clad woman bathes in the cash they ripped off of the consumers.
Seriously which one sounds more likely? The game companies increase their revenues by doing this (as well as other things). That increased revenue gets reinvested into the company. That reinvested money leads to better games (or more 'we take your money' games like WoW but v0v that's another argument.)
People always talk about the big gaming companies now with a wistful voice to the way things used to be, like that was better. Here's the difference between now and then. Back then, you had companies run by high minded developers with no business sense. They created awesome games and then their companies blew up due to piss poor management, and then the series died or was buried on an IP bookshelf somewhere (JA, Mechwarrior, MOO, whatever.) Now the gaming industry is actually making enough money for the BIZDEV folks to take interest and start managing the companies. You are seeing less and less of the big houses evaporating overnight. You are seeing more and more competent management. And really you are also seeing better games with far grander plans and scopes than you have ever seen before (ie the MMO market).
Except in the relatively demographically unpopular markets like Flight Sims, or turn based tactics which are dying due to unprofitability. Which is a real tragedy but luckily freeware is filling that hole more or less.
C
Chibibar
I like the idea of leather couches and babes.
GasBandit
Staff member
Someone needs some internet education.
- Status