A lot of games are releasing DLC (downloadable content) these days, and it's an "all of a sudden" thing, as games usually didn't do this before. They just recently started doing it. What happened to expansion packs? What happened to free updates?
I know consoles have done this a for while, but it seems to be growing rapidly on PCs (Sins of a Solar Empire, Fallout 3). Makes me wonder. Anyone know why or have a theory?
Free updates are free. Why give away what you can sell? This is basic business sense. More complex business sense, which is generally lacking, would lead one to the conclusion that a loyal fan base is worth more than a one time purchase, but reasonably priced downloads aren't a ream job.
The ream jobs themselves, that's called stupid moron with a degree in business thinking his customers are utter fucking morons, or thinking the get everyone once philosophy actually works.
As to why they're downloads. It's more cost effective than going retail, vastly. For something that's only five bucks, you can't go retail and accomplish anything. The distribution and shelving alone will wipe you out. Ten bucks, you're down to a jewel case to make a dime off it, that's why they do large expansion packs and charge nearly as much as the original for them. It's the only way they can make anything off the endeavor after the rest of the supply chain gets their pound of flesh. You can do smaller additions, and you can make a hell of a lot more money off of them.
To do what they've done with Sins, they'd have to wait for all of them to be finished, put the package together, and then only make $10-15 a box, if that. As downloads, they have nearly the full purchase price, and can release them sooner, which will mean higher sales as fewer people have gotten bored and left already. Retail is an economic disaster for games at this point, it's a black hole for revenue.
Sins doesn't have any DLC... Entrenchment is an expansion, although a very samll one.
I think the trend to move away from the free patches of yester-year to the DLC of today is linked with the arrival of Digital Distribution. Companies now have open to them avenues for providing content without the costs of retail packages, as psychoak detailed. It annoys me, however, when games on the Xbox 360 receive priced DLC that the PC version of the same game received for free in an update.
I think the move towards DLC is fine, as long as companies don't abuse it. Bethesda treaded over that line with the infamous Horse Armour DLC for the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and paid the price. Valve is potentially headed in the other direction; content which could be DLC is being released as full priced retail games. As long as companies can walk the middle ground, I think DLC is a great way to provide new content to players at a minimum of cost.
I blame stupid kids, stupid parents and XBOX360... Harvard Business School would be a distant runner up-- why give away what you SHOULD when MOUTH BREATHERS will PAY for it. Horrible, horrible business model.
DrGonzoPS: I don't consider Entrenchment to be DLC.
Entrenchment is still a DLC, but at least it adds a decent amount of content for the price. The other 2 DLC's, plus it, will perhaps equal a decent expansion, and thus be worth the $30 price tag.
I blame stupid kids, stupid parents and XBOX360... Harvard Business School would be a distant runner up-- why give away what you SHOULD when MOUTH BREATHERS will PAY for it. Horrible, horrible business model.DrGonzoPS: I don't consider Entrenchment to be DLC. You and I obviously have a different definition of minimum. Because minimum is zero. Compared to the rest of the content of the game, DLC is OBSCENELY expensive... Like $2.50 for some horse armor... If you factored that out over an entire project-- the game would cost thousands of dollars to the end user-- they'd all go out of business, the world would be a better place-- But like everything else in america- retards pay for it.
Before I reply I'd just like to say DLC is not the end of human kind packaged at $2.50 per download and available to the masses wholesale. DLC is a new business model for content delivery that is currently being explored by most developers as a way of increasing revenue from their titles without the need to publish an entirely new retail pacakge. And as with most new technologies and business models, it's going to take a while before it's ideal.
The major drawback with DLC is that content that was once free, such as additional maps, is now priced and only available to those who want to pay extra for it. This limits what you get in the retail box to exactly that; the out of box experience. The purchase priced used to entitle you to at least some form of additional features or content delivered via update patches - now it seems that all you're entitled to is bug fixes. This is a step backwards in my opinion, as users now have to fork out additional money for what used to be considered a fan service and provided free of charge. Look at Counter-Strike: Source, which overhauled all of their character models, added additional maps and provided additional sever-side features all free of charge. However, the main point here is obviously that Counter-Strike: Source was, at it's peak, the most played online FPS of all time. It also probably helps that it was packaged with a little game called, ahem, Half-life 2. This leads up to the first major benefit of DLC; as long as there is a decent number of purchases, additional content can be provided via DLC for many more games than before as the additional content is paid for rather than provided free. Because it's paid, companies can now provide small episodic updates to their games that the fans can purchase, thus providing additional funds to the company and in part paying for the development of the DLC. In this instance, DLC is a good thing as it enables smaller developers to provide more post-release support and content than in previous years. More content for more games is a good thing, and gives the little guys in the industry a chance to enjoy greater levels of success. Some companies, like Gas Powered Games and Stardock, seem to be working on a model to provide both; supply some content via patches post launch and supply some more for the hardcore fans via DLC. This is an acceptable model in my opinion, as the casual gamers who play once in a while get the game and some additional content while the big fans of the game can get even more if they chose.
The other side of the DLC is also emerging, coloured a deep greed green. Looking at The Sims 3, for example, everything for the game - additional furniture, additional clothes, additional hair styles, etc. - is purchased online via the online store for money with the boxed game containing a relatively small amount of objects considering the online store was available at launch - this begs the question of why weren't these included in the retail box? The answer is self referencing; greed. This is the dark side of DLC in my opinion. This isn't companies providing quality content for additional cost - this is companies milking every single penny they possibly can from their franchises by making sure they provide the bare minimum of content to satisfy reviewers and fans and yet also enticing you into purchasing more. EA Games has a histroy of this kind of business model; look at SPORE for another example. This is where I draw the line. I vote with my wallet, and although EA can produce some good titles - such as Dead Space - I have taken it upon myself to not purchase anything with the EA Logo on the box until they change this behaviour. Hopefully other companies will learn, and DLC can be used to make great games even better. Yes, we have to pay for it, however if it's actually additional content and is worth the money - unlike the god-awful Horse Armour BS Bethesda tried shoveling - I think most gamers would be happy. If you're unhappy, simply don't buy it.
Edit: Quote tags messed up again.
Speaking of DLC, the latest addition to Fallout 3 is available as of today, for 800 Microsoft Money. The three so far have IMO been worth the money, so i'll get this one too. IMO these Fo3 DLC's are better than full expansion, as these add to the original games world and storyline, instead of replacing it with a half a games content like an expansion does. Besides, with DLC's, you have the ability to pick and choose what you want, which is apparently what many will do with the net Fo3 DLC, Mothership Zeta
Some years ago you get these downloadable content for free. Take a look at the games some years ago like Diablo 2. I don' t find it fair to take 3 bucks for 14 units like sega did for Empire: Total War. It is optional? Partly. If you don' t buy better units the time comes you don' t have any chance in multiplayer to others who bought this "optional" downloadable content. For games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 it' s ok. There is no handycap for players who did not buy it because of no multiplayer.
In my opinion downloadable content is oK when players don' t have any handycap in multiplayer if they don' t want to buy the new stuff. And the stuff has to be worth it. Is Entrenchment worth to be paid 10 Bucks? Yes, I think so. There is a lot of new stuff in this small expansion. Is the content of Empire worth to be paid 2,49€? No because there are hundrets of modders making it better and I can get it for free.
For Demigod I don' t want to see any downloadable content but a nice Mini Add on (2-4 new Demigods, 2-5 new maps, social options i.e.). For that I would love to pay 10 Bucks.
Edit: I apologize for my bad English. English is not my mother language but I try my best to make myself understandable.
Basically it does boil down to "good" DLC and "bad" DLC. But sadly bad DLC can give the good an inherent negative bias.
It's usually the worst with console (or console/pc) titles. Take a look at any FPS. As much as I enjoy Gears of War 2, I never paid for any of the map packs - in the old days, we'd get a map editor and the community would be making these. Once GoW2's retail pack hits, with the addition of another SP chapter, I'll buy it and it will include all those maps. I can justify paying for that for the extra gameplay.
Likewise, Battlestations: Pacific - few new maps, and you have to pay $$ for it.
That kind of thing I consider "bad" DLC and even Dead Space got its share of it. Good DLC is things like Entrenchment, or the Fo3 packs. Admittedly, the $10 is a little high individually for the amount of gameplay they offer, but hell, getting the Gauss Rifle out of Anchorage made it worth it - and on principle this kind of new content I think warrants a dollar value. What I don't like is the "map packs" and "costume packs".
Entrenchment isnt an Expansion Pack?
Updates as in what? As in patches? Sins has had 17 (or so) updates since release, and Entrenchment has had 3 so far.
And Ive never had to pay for any of them
EA do this too, i downloaded Red Alert 3 from the EA Download Manager when i was in Brazil last year (since i live in Australia, the whole downloading thing was pretty sweet) and when i was participating in the Entrenchment beta i couldnt have done it without the constant Impulse updates to the beta.
Why? It makes sense. People buy things over the internet, because its easy and usually cheaper, and credit is a lovely thing, even if you cant buy it you can still buy it. its also easier to market on the internet: users who liked this game also liked:...
Its a helluva lot cheaper for the company as it doesnt have to fork out for production (making the disks and the boxes etc), and, they can get more of the cost back because they dont have to sell through a middleman or three. and only has to spend money on keeping the website or program of choice up and running
why recently? probably because someone did a study on Steam and EADM and maybe Impulse if it was around at the time, and realised a hulluva lot of people use/prefer DLC
So, you know, give the people what they want, and then charge them for it =P
If dl really was cheaper than it would be oK. Stardock' games are cheaper when you download it via Impulse (here in Germany I had to pay 49,95€ in a shop but only 28,99€ via Impulse! for Demigod) but take a look at steam. Anno 1404 will cost 49,95€ via Steam It' s the same price as you will have to pay for the game with manual and package and DVD. So why should I prefer it? Only because of downloadable content which you only can buy when you have got Steam on your PC?
I love DLC. I get regular new content for my favourite games which adds new gameplay and new features, and more gaming time.
What's not to love? Anyone bitching about having to pay a few notes for content can either not buy it or get a better job.
And no free update to any game before the days of DLC ever added anything meaningful to a title.
Well, Steam is different. Impulse is better.
So you're saying that we should pay for all this stuff that we used to get for free. And not anyone can get a better job whenever they want. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of people are losing their jobs.
Please tell me you aren't serious. Look at all of Valve's updates for Team Fortress 2. Definitely meaningful. And definitely free.
The mini expansion for Sins IS WORTH THE COST its filled with stuff... now the xbox360 shit like you unlocked costumes and few weapons, a few pictures... IS BULL SH##! 50$ a year should cover this crap but microsoft is a cash hog...
Now... I think that if say all the extras for Mass Effect or say Fallout 3 were put together for 5-10$ its worth it... and over time the price should go down to 0$ and then be add to the disk/ full game download... but individually for each mission expansion... no its not worth it...
Now I like DLC but its cost have to be reasonable... and there should be tons of free updates in between too. This shows your respect to your customers and that their investment is important to them... it can go a long way...
I just think of DLC as expansion packs, without the box. A lot of games used to have several expansions, which could get quite costly just for a little more content, whereas some were pretty good value. It's the same with DLC.
I know i'm talking ancient history here, but the Doom was patched to Ultimate Doom for free for those who had the original, that inluded a new episode or 9 new maps.
More recently, The Witcher Enhanced Edition was also a free update for those who bought the original (like me ), a clever marketing ploy, since according to the forums many bought game again.
I would not actually call it a marketing ploy, they never hid the fact that those who had the original registered would get a free update
It's a marketing ploy created to entice customers into sticking around with "titles" for the long haul by progressively adding some reasonably high value to a product; simply said, it's the good'ol software versions iteration (major & minor updates as usual) principle applied to a new virtual model of transactions given the fact distribution methods have evolved since the D/L infrastructure is there to exploit.
Considering costs of production can also be kept under control (somehow, by selecting the medium), consumers should or must expect better quality (matched with supplemental content, that is) and that's exactly where business decisions (about what & when to offer anything for a proportional price) can either flood a market with potential "sales" or sadly, determine the inevitable fading of popularity (either through continual innovations issued by competition or even, failing to issue essential assets).
The appeal is more about what you pay for and if it fits your **current** needs, although the whole trick for developpers is to attract and keep the fanbase happy.
The risk for abusers would be to over-charge for silly items when people know what the original version (1.0, btw) could have been made of by excluding "precious" elements for later re-selling to milk the hooked crowds. In other words, they also must respect their purchasers; the best example for this kind of reasoning certainly is TotA 12 tech trees.
It's not a bad buisness system so long as the DLC doesn't include some of the basic game requirements and without buying the updates the game sucks beyond believe.\
But yes it is a good thing to be able to have farther income from games that otherwise would have none. Thus increasing the funds for more patches or sequels.
Well, it seems like a new business model, started by EA, to change customers into a monthly income source. EA CEO sort of said that a while back.
Some is (semi) decent, but for the most part, especially the aforementioned PC/console games, DLC is just stupid. The E:TW DLC really exemplifies this; in fact it pretty much takes my point and puts it on a pedestal for all to see. You see, I still can't finish a game. This is because it crashes to the desktop due to a bug whenever I click on certain fleets. When the game is unplayable, I would think they should at the very least make sure it is working before trying to milk more money out of the player base. Heck, they should be giving us free units for putting up with their beta version of the game for the past months.
There are 14 new units free in the patch, and 14 more in the DLC. It may be stupid, but actually $3.49 for 14 units is a lot more bang for the buck than $5 or $10 for a couple new maps.
yeah? why not? i mean it depends what it is.
If its a map pack, idn, i guess it could be free, but if its something that requires new programming (meaning new content like new units, weapons, players mayber?) then you should really pay.
i mean, how would you feel if you worked as, say, an architect. let say you designed/built a condominium for a client. so they payed the original fee, but now they want to add a garden... and a rooftop bbq area, and they want to convert one floor to an indoor pool and gym. and heres the kicker, they want you to do it for free... how would you feel?
all things aside, another thing to think about is that this is someones livelihood. its not a hobby they do, this is what pays the bills for them, puts food on the table. and you want them to work for free?
sure, some of the larger companies have multiple programs running at once, so there is always revenue coming in. but for a company like Ironclad, with all of 11 or so staff, they'd need to work nearly non-stop to make sure everything can be released asap. it takes long enough as it is, considering they wont get another substantial cash infusion until they release something new.
if its worthwhile, pay for it, dont look out for the scab and try to get everything for free
I think Microsoft should make windows 7 as an free update to windows vista. Afterall, Vista sucks period and after two years, it comes out with an operating system that is an improved version of Vista. MS owns its customer base to fix ALL the flaws that is associated with Vista, not try to milk more money out of them.
(ill assume you mean 'owe' not 'own')
Microsoft is like Chuck Norris, it dont owe nobody nuthin', everybody owes Microsoft, otherwise they press a button that causes your computer to transform and go ninja on your ass, kill you, then blow up in your fridge =P
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
