Export thread
A short open letter to the video game industry
#1
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
(that only some people here will read)
Hello games industry,
I am one of those people that feeds your children. I am the guy that buys many, many new games a year. I like to buy games. I'm not a big fan of piracy (dumb word). If I buy a game, let's call it Deus Ex: Human Revolution, from Steam I get nothing for it but a copy of an old game I've owned for over 10 years. If I had pre-ordered it from Gamestop (never) I would have gotten DLC for some extra equipment (lame). If I had pre-ordered it from Play UK, I would have gotten the extra equipment and extra ingame missions. This is unacceptable.
From now on, whenever I see that I have to preorder your game from a certain retailer in order to get the full game, I will not be doing so. I may not even pirate it. I will just not be giving you any money. Thank you for making me see the error in my ways. This may not change anything for you, the industry, but I will be saving a ton of money by not paying for this bullshit.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go pretend it's 1999 and I can go into a store to buy a game and not be hassled by people trying to sell me shit that won't be out for 6 months.
Fuck off sincerely,
Franklin Quentin Watterschmidt Bassett
Hello games industry,
I am one of those people that feeds your children. I am the guy that buys many, many new games a year. I like to buy games. I'm not a big fan of piracy (dumb word). If I buy a game, let's call it Deus Ex: Human Revolution, from Steam I get nothing for it but a copy of an old game I've owned for over 10 years. If I had pre-ordered it from Gamestop (never) I would have gotten DLC for some extra equipment (lame). If I had pre-ordered it from Play UK, I would have gotten the extra equipment and extra ingame missions. This is unacceptable.
From now on, whenever I see that I have to preorder your game from a certain retailer in order to get the full game, I will not be doing so. I may not even pirate it. I will just not be giving you any money. Thank you for making me see the error in my ways. This may not change anything for you, the industry, but I will be saving a ton of money by not paying for this bullshit.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go pretend it's 1999 and I can go into a store to buy a game and not be hassled by people trying to sell me shit that won't be out for 6 months.
Fuck off sincerely,
Franklin Quentin Watterschmidt Bassett
#2
Dave
Dave
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I buy the base game and pirate the shit out of the "special location" DLC. And I don't feel even the least bit bad about it.
I buy the base game and pirate the shit out of the "special location" DLC. And I don't feel even the least bit bad about it.
#3
Gryfter
Gryfter
Preach it !!!!! **fist pump**
#4
Jay
Jay
Nice letter, will read again.
Once again :
Once again :
#5
Espy
Espy
I'm with you for the most part, my only question is how are we defining "the whole game." I heard a lot of people whining about the "Sebastion" thing in DA2. In no way was his character or quests necessary to the main game. Hell, they weren't even very good and he was a redundant character. So was his stuff bonus or main gameplay? Since we don't know if it was developed to be main gameplay or bonus content can we know? Honestly, 99% of the "bonus" content, especially extra locations, seem to be pretty boring in my experience. Gimme some good gear for a bonus, not a half assed map thankyouverymuch.
#6
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
DLC doesn't generally bother me. DLC that is retailer pre-order specific fucking does.
LA Noire is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE fucking perpetrator of the ripped content DLC. All of the DLC episodes were torn out of the game to milk more money out of that overbudget mess.
LA Noire is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE fucking perpetrator of the ripped content DLC. All of the DLC episodes were torn out of the game to milk more money out of that overbudget mess.
#7
Espy
Espy
Well sure, that is... a horrible thing. It's really bad. I am, in no way a fan of this. My question is more, how do we know that they were torn out of the game? Did someone leak that or did they openly say it?LA Noire is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE fucking perpetrator of the ripped content DLC. All of the DLC episodes were torn out of the game to milk more money out of that overbudget mess.
#8
Jay
Jay
I hate how I can't just buy the game from one place and get everything I want without feeling pressured to make the right decision. I need to shop around different places, with different prices thrown at me with labels that scream "EXTRA SHIT if you buy with us, LESS with them" when in reality, ALL of that "EXTRA" content is already in the game on launch day.
Different situation, let's say you go to the baker's shop to buy a tasty baguette, you proceed to buy the bagette but notice that one of the ends is missing, like about 15% of the baguette. You look up, a confused look on your face, you feel somewhat upset and your anus feels especially vulnerable at this point and time.
You take two deep breaths as you shake the cobwebs of confusion from your mind and fight the instant urge to gut the guy in front of you with your car keys because quite frankly, that would mean jail time and that means, no more gaming. You take a step back and ask him politely what happened, he opens his palm towards you and asks for a "taste" and quickly offers the piece that has been "enhanced for you" for extra awesomeness and that you'd be a fool to say no.
You contemplate the offer but notice that OJ is also working at the other counter with a sign over his head saying, "FREE DLCS - TRUST ME". Your first instinct to run over there and get that free shit but then you realize... you don't want to buy from OJ, OJ is a fucken asshole and has a reputation of putting his hands on things he should and well... he's a fucken murderer.
Suddenly, Carrottop appears on the other side of the room and goes, "PSSST!" You turn to him wondering what the fuck this gingerhead fuck wants from you. He offers you the same piece that was missing from your original baguette but this time it's labeled differently and he promises that the missing baguette piece tastes extra garlicky.
You ponder as you rub your goat chin beard. "I do indeed like the garlicky."
You agree to his offer and front the fee, Carrottop skips away fleefully... probably to smoke some crack balls. You jump in your car with the new purchase(s) and go home and enjoy the fuit of your labors.
The question reminds, why is it so complicated to buy a fucken baguette these days?
Different situation, let's say you go to the baker's shop to buy a tasty baguette, you proceed to buy the bagette but notice that one of the ends is missing, like about 15% of the baguette. You look up, a confused look on your face, you feel somewhat upset and your anus feels especially vulnerable at this point and time.
You take two deep breaths as you shake the cobwebs of confusion from your mind and fight the instant urge to gut the guy in front of you with your car keys because quite frankly, that would mean jail time and that means, no more gaming. You take a step back and ask him politely what happened, he opens his palm towards you and asks for a "taste" and quickly offers the piece that has been "enhanced for you" for extra awesomeness and that you'd be a fool to say no.
You contemplate the offer but notice that OJ is also working at the other counter with a sign over his head saying, "FREE DLCS - TRUST ME". Your first instinct to run over there and get that free shit but then you realize... you don't want to buy from OJ, OJ is a fucken asshole and has a reputation of putting his hands on things he should and well... he's a fucken murderer.
Suddenly, Carrottop appears on the other side of the room and goes, "PSSST!" You turn to him wondering what the fuck this gingerhead fuck wants from you. He offers you the same piece that was missing from your original baguette but this time it's labeled differently and he promises that the missing baguette piece tastes extra garlicky.
You ponder as you rub your goat chin beard. "I do indeed like the garlicky."
You agree to his offer and front the fee, Carrottop skips away fleefully... probably to smoke some crack balls. You jump in your car with the new purchase(s) and go home and enjoy the fuit of your labors.
The question reminds, why is it so complicated to buy a fucken baguette these days?
#9
Frankie Williamson
As to what Jay's saying, DLC on the disc when I buy it that needs me to pay for an unlock code? Unfuckingacceptable.
Frankie Williamson
Because the lead designer said they were because the game WAS TOOO BIIIIIIIG.Well sure, that is... a horrible thing. It's really bad. I am, in no way a fan of this. My question is more, how do we know that they were torn out of the game? Did someone leak that or did they openly say it?
As to what Jay's saying, DLC on the disc when I buy it that needs me to pay for an unlock code? Unfuckingacceptable.
#10
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
I've only pre-ordered two games since getting my PS3: Dead Rising 2 and LA Noire. In both cases, I didn't give a shit about the DLC that came with it, but it was a nice added bonus.
Most of my other purchases have been used. Because I'm sure as hell not going to pay $60-70 for a game that I'll beat in a couple of weeks.
Most of my other purchases have been used. Because I'm sure as hell not going to pay $60-70 for a game that I'll beat in a couple of weeks.
#11
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Kanye has nothing on you Jay. You're a lyrical mastermind!I hate how I can't just buy the game from one place and get everything I want without feeling pressured to make the right decision. I need to shop around different places, with different prices thrown at me with labels that scream "EXTRA SHIT if you buy with us, LESS with them" when in reality, ALL of that "EXTRA" content is already in the game on launch day.
Different situation, let's say you go to the baker's shop to buy a tasty baguette, you proceed to buy the bagette but notice that one of the ends is missing, like about 15% of the baguette. You look up, a confused look on your face, you feel somewhat upset and your anus feels especially vulnerable at this point and time.
You take two deep breaths as you shake the cobwebs of confusion from your mind and fight the instant urge to gut the guy in front of you with your car keys because quite frankly, that would mean jail time and that means, no more gaming. You take a step back and ask him politely what happened, he opens his palm towards you and asks for a "taste" and quickly offers the piece that has been "enhanced for you" for extra awesomeness and that you'd be a fool to say no.
You contemplate the offer but notice that OJ is also working at the other counter with a sign over his head saying, "FREE DLCS - TRUST ME". Your first instinct to run over there and get that free shit but then you realize... you don't want to buy from OJ, OJ is a fucken asshole and has a reputation of putting his hands on things he should and well... he's a fucken murderer.
Suddenly, Carrottop appears on the other side of the room and goes, "PSSST!" You turn to him wondering what the fuck this gingerhead fuck wants from you. He offers you the same piece that was missing from your original baguette but this time it's labeled differently and he promises that the missing baguette piece tastes extra garlicky.
You ponder as you rub your goat chin beard. "I do indeed like the garlicky."
You agree to his offer and front the fee, Carrottop skips away fleefully... probably to smoke some crack balls. You jump in your car with the new purchase(s) and go home and enjoy the fuit of your labors.
The question reminds, why is it so complicated to buy a fucken baguette these days?
#12
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Which is why the only publishers left are the big ones like Activision and EA.Most of my other purchases have been used. Because I'm sure as hell not going to pay $60-70 for a game that I'll beat in a couple of weeks.
#13
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Only publishers? That's going a bit far.
#14
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Like.
#15
Espy
Espy
Agreed. Thats total bullshit. I could respect it if they treated them as "deleted scenes" because they felt they screwed up the flow of the game and offered them as downloads, I mean at least then it's a gameplay issue, but this sounds like money-grab.Because the lead designer said they were because the game WAS TOOO BIIIIIIIG.
As to what Jay's saying, DLC on the disc when I buy it that needs me to pay for an unlock code? Unfuckingacceptable.
#16
TheBrew
TheBrew
I know that at least in the DX:HR for Gamestop example, Gamestop commissioned the DLC. If a retailer pays the developer/publisher more money to make unique content, I have no problem with it being a pre-order exclusive.
#17
Jay
Jay
Looks like it went over the heads of many people lol.Kanye has nothing on you Jay. You're a lyrical mastermind!
#18
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
That's cool to be alright with it, but like I said in the OP, from now on, I won't be giving dime one to companies that do this.I know that at least in the DX:HR for Gamestop example, Gamestop commissioned the DLC. If a retailer pays the developer/publisher more money to make unique content, I have no problem with it being a pre-order exclusive.
#19
TheBrew
Of course, that is my point of view. Feel free to disagree and boycott to your heart's content.
TheBrew
I think that there is a world of difference between the game company slicing off content to sell as DLC later (TF: War For Cybertron anyone?) and that company being commissioned for extra content by a third party. It is not content already developed for a game that the developer sliced off for later, but brand new content. If a third party paid a developer to make an expansion pack and that pack would only be available through that third party, would you cry foul?That's cool to be alright with it, but like I said in the OP, from now on, I won't be giving dime one to companies that do this.
Of course, that is my point of view. Feel free to disagree and boycott to your heart's content.
#20
Chibibar
To me, I'm thinking content cause so far most "store unique" items eventually become available to all via the game company itself.
Chibibar
The problem is that we don't know if 3rd party commission or they are cutting content.I think that there is a world of difference between the game company slicing off content to sell as DLC later (TF: War For Cybertron anyone?) and that company being commissioned for extra content by a third party. It is not content already developed for a game that the developer sliced off for later, but brand new content. If a third party paid a developer to make an expansion pack and that pack would only be available through that third party, would you cry foul?
Of course, that is my point of view. Feel free to disagree and boycott to your heart's content.
To me, I'm thinking content cause so far most "store unique" items eventually become available to all via the game company itself.
#21
Necronic
Necronic
If you really have a problem with any of this stuff then don't buy the games that do it and focus your spending instead on companies that are pro-modding and whatnot. Unlimited free DLC.
If the argument comes down to "but I have to get it" then you've just made the perfect argument for why they can do anything they want to you.
If the argument comes down to "but I have to get it" then you've just made the perfect argument for why they can do anything they want to you.
#22
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
I agree sir and that's what I will do. I don't have to have it. That was the point of the letter. I don't mind DLC as I've said, I DO mine DLC on the disc already that I have to pay for.
#23
Chibibar
Chibibar
Agree. I was kinda mift with DA on that one. The quest is right there but I have to unlock it via buying?? WTF?I agree sir and that's what I will do. I don't have to have it. That was the point of the letter. I don't mind DLC as I've said, I DO mine DLC on the disc already that I have to pay for.
#24
Jay
Jay
i Think it is very clear that a dlc created after release day most people have nO qualms against Really.... however Releasing a dlc bEfore or at release is a major irritaNt of mine but That's just me.
#25
Covar
Covar
Really cause it seems you just have no qualms about stealing it regardless.i Think it is very clear that a dlc created after release day most people have nO qualms against Really.... however Releasing a dlc bEfore or at release is a major irritaNt of mine but That's just me.
#26
TheBrew
TheBrew
I agree that having that knowledge is important in making a judgement. I just know that in the specific case of the Gamestop DLC for DX:HR, Gamestop actually commissioned the new content.The problem is that we don't know if 3rd party commission or they are cutting content.
To me, I'm thinking content cause so far most "store unique" items eventually become available to all via the game company itself.
#27
Jay
Jay
Really cause it seems you just have no qualms about stealing it regardless.
#29
Jay
Jay
Actually, I think it ended up working better than originally intended.
#30
fade
fade
I don't think I follow the logic in this thread. There has to be a physical separation between the DLC and the game itself, even if the programmers always intended the DLC to be separate, but included it on the disc as a matter of convenience, perhaps even to the user? Why? Because you physically hold the disc? Since when has that mattered? That wall of text you click through has always said that you did not pay for the game, only the right to use it. The only right you bought is unlocked, as in the deal you entered at purchase time. No different than having it on the server. It's not even like this is new. If you bought, say WoW classic, you still have to download the entire Cataclysm. You just can't access the Cataclysm content, even though it resides on your physical disc.
#31
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I'll break it down for you Fade because you seem to be confused:
1: DLC that comes months later in the form of added content = OK!
2: DLC that's created on Day 1 of the game, but is locked away by RL $ or some retailer offering $ to keep it from being mass distributed = Not OK!
That can't be hard to follow, logic wise.
1: DLC that comes months later in the form of added content = OK!
2: DLC that's created on Day 1 of the game, but is locked away by RL $ or some retailer offering $ to keep it from being mass distributed = Not OK!
That can't be hard to follow, logic wise.
#32
fade
fade
I understand that perfectly. The logic I don't understand is the "why". I fail to see a real difference.
#33
Jay
Jay
I understand that perfectly. The logic I don't understand is the "why". I fail to see a real difference.
#34
Vrii
The other is additional work being done and sold after the game is released, adding additional content for an additional cost. There's no decision to hold back some of the data they already sold you.
Vrii
One is a blatant moneygrab, where the company says "Hey, we're going to take your money, and I guess we'll give you this chunk of the game we made for it. I think we'll hold back this other, completely finished chunk of the game, though. Yeah, it's on the disc, but we haven't gouged you quite hard enough yet. Give us another $5 or $10 and we'll let you access the thing that's been in your possession all along".I understand that perfectly. The logic I don't understand is the "why". I fail to see a real difference.
The other is additional work being done and sold after the game is released, adding additional content for an additional cost. There's no decision to hold back some of the data they already sold you.
#35
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
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?
#36
fade
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.
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.
#37
Jay
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.
#38
Shegokigo
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.
Needless to say, it's wrong, it's a money grab and they're doing it because they can.
#39
fade
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.
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.
#40
figmentPez
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.
figmentPez
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.Selling the disc in the first place was a money grab.
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.
#41
Zappit
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.
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.
#42
fade
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.
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.
#43
figmentPez
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.)
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.
figmentPez
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.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.
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.)
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.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.
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.
#44
Shegokigo
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.
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.
#45
Ravenpoe
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.
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.
#46
Vrii
Vrii
He told you that, quite clearly. Calling him on it like it damns everything he's saying is pretty ridiculous.You're just choosing to take the extreme opposite side of the conversation for the heck of it.
#47
Shegokigo
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.
#48
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
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.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?
#49
Vrii
Vrii
Try reading before you post, Shego.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.
#50
Hailey Knight
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.
#51
Vrii
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.
#52
Hailey Knight
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.
Hailey Knight
I suggest it and accuse him of it.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.
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.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.
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.
#53
Jay
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.
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.
#54
phil
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.
#55
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I'd say "You're new here, so you probably don't understand" but you're not....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.
#56
Vrii
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.
#57
Necronic
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....
Also....
That's like every game ever.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
#58
Chibibar
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)
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)
#59
Espy
Espy
Why on earth would anyone be upset that DLC was created while the game was being worked on? Thats just stupid.
#60
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Because then the developer is being GREEDY and trying to make MONEY and be SUCCESSFUL, and we hate that.Why on earth would anyone be upset that DLC was created while the game was being worked on? Thats just stupid.
#61
Espy
Espy
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.Because then the developer is being GREEDY and trying to make MONEY and be SUCCESSFUL, and we hate that.
#62
Chibibar
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.
Chibibar
right, but the problem is that we have developer's side and comsumer's perspective.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.
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.
#63
GasBandit
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.
#64
Chibibar
Chibibar
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.)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.
#65
Espy
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.
#66
Azurephoenix
Get the core game right and complete... THEN give us tasty extra content.
Azurephoenix
Bolded for emphasis...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.
Get the core game right and complete... THEN give us tasty extra content.
#67
Chibibar
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???
Chibibar
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.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.
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???
#68
GasBandit
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.
#69
Chibibar
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)
Chibibar
Of course if any Devs read this threadThat'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.
And they are smartThen 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)
#70
Espy
Espy
That should just be the general rule anyway.Get the core game right and complete...
#71
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
I completely agree with you... but we both know that's almost never the actual case in practiceThat should just be the general rule anyway.
#72
Chibibar
Have you notice that software is the ONLY product that you can release with flaws and it is ok.
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.
#73
GasBandit
GasBandit
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.Heck, Even the best of companies (even Bliz) can't crank out a perfect product (close but still)
Have you notice that software is the ONLY product that you can release with flaws and it is ok.
#74
Chibibar
Chibibar
True true.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.
#75
Disconnected
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.
#76
GasBandit
As opposed to spending all 50 on the original game, and then seeing it do well, so then expending FURTHER resources on making DLC.
GasBandit
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."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.
As opposed to spending all 50 on the original game, and then seeing it do well, so then expending FURTHER resources on making DLC.
#77
Chibibar
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
wouldn't have just piss you off. Or even worst, the game is not as polish or complete without the DLC.
Chibibar
Problem is that we don't know if that is the case. I think the main "anger" comes from customer's perception.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.
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.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.
wouldn't have just piss you off. Or even worst, the game is not as polish or complete without the DLC.
#78
Necronic
Necronic
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.
#79
Chibibar
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.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.
#80
Frankie Williamson
But as I've said, I don't really care about DLC, it's retailer exclusive pre-order shit that makes me angry.
Frankie Williamson
That's great and all. I don't have to like it nor do I have to spend money on it.stuff
But as I've said, I don't really care about DLC, it's retailer exclusive pre-order shit that makes me angry.
#81
Chibibar
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.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.
#82
GasBandit
RIPPING ME OFF WITH RELEASE-DLC
THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK BUT COME ON, NIGGA, PLEASE
I'M GONNA PIRATE.
GasBandit
YO HO FIDDLE DE DEE,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.
RIPPING ME OFF WITH RELEASE-DLC
THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK BUT COME ON, NIGGA, PLEASE
I'M GONNA PIRATE.
#83
Chibibar
I don't pirate, you must be confuse me with someone else
Chibibar
eh?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.
I don't pirate, you must be confuse me with someone else
#84
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
He was just singing a song Chibi, not accusing you of anything. No worries.
I sing that song pretty often actually.
I sing that song pretty often actually.
#85
Necronic
Also gas that rhyme/rythm is not very good man. BUT I LIKES IT.
Necronic
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?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.
Also gas that rhyme/rythm is not very good man. BUT I LIKES IT.
#86
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Please show me instances of this because it doesn't happen very often.
#87
Chibibar
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.
#88
Necronic
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.
Necronic
There are really only two logical ways for it to go.Please show me instances of this because it doesn't happen very often.
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.
#89
Chibibar
Chibibar
I like the idea of leather couches and babes.
#90
GasBandit
GasBandit
Someone needs some internet education.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.