Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Bioware "Some players want day-one DLC"

245

Comments

  • paroxysmparoxysm Nowhere, INPosts: 437Member
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    Overall I think what he's trying to point out is that some developers are providing extra content via DLC and people just aren't aware of it because of how it works and by providing Day 1 DLC to people it introduces them to it and makes it not only beneficial to the developer/publisher in the potential to make more money, but also to the gamer in providing more content. 

    Historically, I'd argue, that good games will sell DLC/Expansions/Etc.  So, what are they really saying about their games if people won't bother with DLC post release of the game.  Was their experience not that good?  Is the DLC not seemingly worth the cost?  Does the DLC not fit with the original release story wise?

    Just seems like another problem looked at from the wrong end.

  • sicness277sicness277 Springfield, VAPosts: 39Member
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    Overall I think what he's trying to point out is that some developers are providing extra content via DLC and people just aren't aware of it because of how it works and by providing Day 1 DLC to people it introduces them to it and makes it not only beneficial to the developer/publisher in the potential to make more money, but also to the gamer in providing more content. 

    Historically, I'd argue, that good games will sell DLC/Expansions/Etc.  So, what are they really saying about their games if people won't bother with DLC post release of the game.  Was their experience not that good?  Is the DLC not seemingly worth the cost?  Does the DLC not fit with the original release story wise?

    Just seems like another problem looked at from the wrong end.

    It's not about whether the game is good or not, it's simply about whether people know the DLC exists or not, in my opinion. DLC for games isn't advertised except the rare triple-A title games like Skyrim. There's no easy or reliable method for them to provide information on new DLC to the people who are willing to buy it. 

     

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,497Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    In the blue part, you assume that in order to make a "profit" on DLC, they have to sell day 1 DLC. I doubt this is true. If you or him have any evidence to back it up, I'd like to see it. 

     

    AS for the red, of course day 1 DLC would go "unnoticed" if it was part of the game instead of day 1 DLC. It would be part of the game. Also, since when has EA/Bioware not put out a "big name title?"

  • paroxysmparoxysm Nowhere, INPosts: 437Member
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    Overall I think what he's trying to point out is that some developers are providing extra content via DLC and people just aren't aware of it because of how it works and by providing Day 1 DLC to people it introduces them to it and makes it not only beneficial to the developer/publisher in the potential to make more money, but also to the gamer in providing more content. 

    Historically, I'd argue, that good games will sell DLC/Expansions/Etc.  So, what are they really saying about their games if people won't bother with DLC post release of the game.  Was their experience not that good?  Is the DLC not seemingly worth the cost?  Does the DLC not fit with the original release story wise?

    Just seems like another problem looked at from the wrong end.

    It's not about whether the game is good or not, it's simply about whether people know the DLC exists or not, in my opinion. DLC for games isn't advertised except the rare triple-A title games like Skyrim. There's no easy or reliable method for them to provide information on new DLC to the people who are willing to buy it. 

     

    With game companies using all game encompassing systems like origin and battle.net, I'd have to argue against that.  How many people uncheck "I'd like to receive info about updates/etc for this product via email.".  With consoles, you can do it via the network for that console with built in methods or use ideas like presented in some newer games.  Where the game itself, upon launch/at title screen, updates you with the latest news for that game.  Games have offical websites and forums as well as fan sites.  How many gaming news sites are there?  I can't talk on cost for those delivery methods, but I doubt any of those compares even closely to tv commercial spots.

  • sicness277sicness277 Springfield, VAPosts: 39Member
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    In the blue part, you assume that in order to make a "profit" on DLC, they have to sell day 1 DLC. I doubt this is true. If you or him have any evidence to back it up, I'd like to see it. 

     

    AS for the red, of course day 1 DLC would go "unnoticed" if it was part of the game instead of day 1 DLC. It would be part of the game. Also, since when has EA/Bioware not put out a "big name title?"

    Profit may have been the wrong word to use as 'make a decent amount of money off of' is likely better overall. Obviously I don't have proof of this, but what I'm interpreting of his statements makes logical sense, that release day DLC motivates people to check DLC of the game when they get it and can potentially motivate them to check it again later when more DLC is provided, basically introducing the system to them.

    Again, my whole point is that he may be trying to say that Day 1 DLC helps them sell more future DLC, and therein provide more of the game that people want. 

    As far as your 'big name title' comment, that's irrelevant. DLC advertising for the majority of games is mostly not done at all or at most only done on console systems via their 'stores'. There is no easy way for developers and publishers to provide information on all their DLC content for all of their games. For example, everyone's heard of Skyrim or BF3 DLC but nothing when it comes to EA's sports titles, which they likely make as much or more money off of DLC. It's not about being a big name title, it's about letting the consumers know that the DLC exists. 

  • sicness277sicness277 Springfield, VAPosts: 39Member
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    Overall I think what he's trying to point out is that some developers are providing extra content via DLC and people just aren't aware of it because of how it works and by providing Day 1 DLC to people it introduces them to it and makes it not only beneficial to the developer/publisher in the potential to make more money, but also to the gamer in providing more content. 

    Historically, I'd argue, that good games will sell DLC/Expansions/Etc.  So, what are they really saying about their games if people won't bother with DLC post release of the game.  Was their experience not that good?  Is the DLC not seemingly worth the cost?  Does the DLC not fit with the original release story wise?

    Just seems like another problem looked at from the wrong end.

    It's not about whether the game is good or not, it's simply about whether people know the DLC exists or not, in my opinion. DLC for games isn't advertised except the rare triple-A title games like Skyrim. There's no easy or reliable method for them to provide information on new DLC to the people who are willing to buy it. 

     

    With game companies using all game encompassing systems like origin and battle.net, I'd have to argue against that.  How many people uncheck "I'd like to receive info about updates/etc for this product via email.".  With consoles, you can do it via the network for that console with built in methods or use ideas like presented in some newer games.  Where the game itself, upon launch/at title screen, updates you with the latest news for that game.  Games have offical websites and forums as well as fan sites.  How many gaming news sites are there?  I can't talk on cost for those delivery methods, but I doubt any of those compares even closely to tv commercial spots.

    Again, it's not about the gamer like you and I who check sites and console stores for such DCLs regularly, it's about the average gamer who never does and is the more likely person to buy their DLC. When the majority of their sales on DLC comes from people who don't visit game sites regularly or even login to their console store then how else are they to inform them of the DLC?

    It's a logical method to provide Day 1 DLC and advertise it on the box to introduce people how they can check the DLC for the game they just bought. 

  • paroxysmparoxysm Nowhere, INPosts: 437Member
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    Overall I think what he's trying to point out is that some developers are providing extra content via DLC and people just aren't aware of it because of how it works and by providing Day 1 DLC to people it introduces them to it and makes it not only beneficial to the developer/publisher in the potential to make more money, but also to the gamer in providing more content. 

    Historically, I'd argue, that good games will sell DLC/Expansions/Etc.  So, what are they really saying about their games if people won't bother with DLC post release of the game.  Was their experience not that good?  Is the DLC not seemingly worth the cost?  Does the DLC not fit with the original release story wise?

    Just seems like another problem looked at from the wrong end.

    It's not about whether the game is good or not, it's simply about whether people know the DLC exists or not, in my opinion. DLC for games isn't advertised except the rare triple-A title games like Skyrim. There's no easy or reliable method for them to provide information on new DLC to the people who are willing to buy it. 

     

    With game companies using all game encompassing systems like origin and battle.net, I'd have to argue against that.  How many people uncheck "I'd like to receive info about updates/etc for this product via email.".  With consoles, you can do it via the network for that console with built in methods or use ideas like presented in some newer games.  Where the game itself, upon launch/at title screen, updates you with the latest news for that game.  Games have offical websites and forums as well as fan sites.  How many gaming news sites are there?  I can't talk on cost for those delivery methods, but I doubt any of those compares even closely to tv commercial spots.

    Again, it's not about the gamer like you and I who check sites and console stores for such DCLs regularly, it's about the average gamer who never does and is the more likely person to buy their DLC. When the majority of their sales on DLC comes from people who don't visit game sites regularly or even login to their console store then how else are they to inform them of the DLC?

    As I pointed out, there are ways to get their attention.  I'd argue it's easier now than ever.  The only real opposition of this is diversity.  Information is spread out. 

    I'll give you a couple more.  What game company doesn't have a facebook, twitter, or youtube account? Every single piece of PC software these days installs a program run from a startup or service that checks to see if your software is up to date.  I don't like them, but it's true. 

    We live in a world where people want to be first at anything and everything despite it's importance.  It's not so hard to spread around information these days.  Most of the time, in their lust for fame/acknowledgement, people will do the work for you.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,497Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    In the blue part, you assume that in order to make a "profit" on DLC, they have to sell day 1 DLC. I doubt this is true. If you or him have any evidence to back it up, I'd like to see it. 

     

    AS for the red, of course day 1 DLC would go "unnoticed" if it was part of the game instead of day 1 DLC. It would be part of the game. Also, since when has EA/Bioware not put out a "big name title?"

    Profit may have been the wrong word to use as 'make a decent amount of money off of' is likely better overall. Obviously I don't have proof of this, but what I'm interpreting of his statements makes logical sense, that release day DLC motivates people to check DLC of the game when they get it and can potentially motivate them to check it again later when more DLC is provided, basically introducing the system to them.

    Again, my whole point is that he may be trying to say that Day 1 DLC helps them sell more future DLC, and therein provide more of the game that people want. 

    As far as your 'big name title' comment, that's irrelevant. DLC advertising for the majority of games is mostly not done at all or at most only done on console systems via their 'stores'. There is no easy way for developers and publishers to provide information on all their DLC content for all of their games. For example, everyone's heard of Skyrim or BF3 DLC but nothing when it comes to EA's sports titles, which they likely make as much or more money off of DLC. It's not about being a big name title, it's about letting the consumers know that the DLC exists. 

    I don't accept your argument that day 1 DLC helps them sell future DLC. There is just no evidence of it. All it serves to do is support the mans argument without any evidence and attempt to spin day 1 DLC in a better light. Basically, I don't accept your premise for a really good reason. There is no reason to accept your premise.

     

    When it comes to your argument about developers not being able to market their DLC, here is an example of that happening:

    http://www.gamespot.com/mass-effect-3/videos/resurgence-mass-effect-3-dlc-trailer-6370345/

  • sicness277sicness277 Springfield, VAPosts: 39Member
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    Overall I think what he's trying to point out is that some developers are providing extra content via DLC and people just aren't aware of it because of how it works and by providing Day 1 DLC to people it introduces them to it and makes it not only beneficial to the developer/publisher in the potential to make more money, but also to the gamer in providing more content. 

    Historically, I'd argue, that good games will sell DLC/Expansions/Etc.  So, what are they really saying about their games if people won't bother with DLC post release of the game.  Was their experience not that good?  Is the DLC not seemingly worth the cost?  Does the DLC not fit with the original release story wise?

    Just seems like another problem looked at from the wrong end.

    It's not about whether the game is good or not, it's simply about whether people know the DLC exists or not, in my opinion. DLC for games isn't advertised except the rare triple-A title games like Skyrim. There's no easy or reliable method for them to provide information on new DLC to the people who are willing to buy it. 

     

    With game companies using all game encompassing systems like origin and battle.net, I'd have to argue against that.  How many people uncheck "I'd like to receive info about updates/etc for this product via email.".  With consoles, you can do it via the network for that console with built in methods or use ideas like presented in some newer games.  Where the game itself, upon launch/at title screen, updates you with the latest news for that game.  Games have offical websites and forums as well as fan sites.  How many gaming news sites are there?  I can't talk on cost for those delivery methods, but I doubt any of those compares even closely to tv commercial spots.

    Again, it's not about the gamer like you and I who check sites and console stores for such DCLs regularly, it's about the average gamer who never does and is the more likely person to buy their DLC. When the majority of their sales on DLC comes from people who don't visit game sites regularly or even login to their console store then how else are they to inform them of the DLC?

    As I pointed out, there are ways to get their attention.  I'd argue it's easier now than ever.  The only real opposition of this is diversity.  Information is spread out. 

    I'll give you a couple more.  What game company doesn't have a facebook, twitter, or youtube account? 

    We live in a world where people want to be first at anything and everything despite it's importance.  It's not so hard to spread around information these days.  Most of the time, in their lust for fame/acknowledgement, people will do the work for you.

    I agree, it is easier than ever, but again it's about getting that information to the people who buy the DLC. A great example is Mass Effect 3. Outcry all over the internet happened when the Day 1 DLC was announced with the majority of the online community claiming they'd not buy the game at all, yet the game outsold ME2. Online gamers overestimate their actual control in such things and think that the people in the online gaming community make up the majority when it couldn't be further from the truth. They are a minority and they are not the ones who buy this DLC, so advertising to them is near worthless. 

  • sicness277sicness277 Springfield, VAPosts: 39Member
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by sicness277

    And if people were given the game for free they'd prefer that as well obviously. I don't think he's saying that people are demanding it, just that in order for them to profit from DLC they have to provide Day 1 DLC or else people don't bother looking at their DLC content later. I don't think he's spinning it at all though, he's simply stating the facts.

    I mean honestly think of how many games have DLC that are advertised, let alone talked about amongst players online (which aren't even the majority of people buying that DLC anyways). He's just saying that their primary focus in providing Day 1 DLC is to basically introduce the players to their DLC content that would otherwise go unnoticed unless they're a big name title that would actually advertise certain DLC. 

    In the blue part, you assume that in order to make a "profit" on DLC, they have to sell day 1 DLC. I doubt this is true. If you or him have any evidence to back it up, I'd like to see it. 

     

    AS for the red, of course day 1 DLC would go "unnoticed" if it was part of the game instead of day 1 DLC. It would be part of the game. Also, since when has EA/Bioware not put out a "big name title?"

    Profit may have been the wrong word to use as 'make a decent amount of money off of' is likely better overall. Obviously I don't have proof of this, but what I'm interpreting of his statements makes logical sense, that release day DLC motivates people to check DLC of the game when they get it and can potentially motivate them to check it again later when more DLC is provided, basically introducing the system to them.

    Again, my whole point is that he may be trying to say that Day 1 DLC helps them sell more future DLC, and therein provide more of the game that people want. 

    As far as your 'big name title' comment, that's irrelevant. DLC advertising for the majority of games is mostly not done at all or at most only done on console systems via their 'stores'. There is no easy way for developers and publishers to provide information on all their DLC content for all of their games. For example, everyone's heard of Skyrim or BF3 DLC but nothing when it comes to EA's sports titles, which they likely make as much or more money off of DLC. It's not about being a big name title, it's about letting the consumers know that the DLC exists. 

    I don't accept your argument that day 1 DLC helps them sell future DLC. There is just no evidence of it. All it serves to do is support the mans argument without any evidence and attempt to spin day 1 DLC in a better light. Basically, I don't accept your premise for a really good reason. There is no reason to accept your premise.

     

    When it comes to your argument about developers not being able to market their DLC, here is an example of that happening:

    http://www.gamespot.com/mass-effect-3/videos/resurgence-mass-effect-3-dlc-trailer-6370345/

    That's fine if you don't accept it, as there is no evidence of it one way or the other as we have nothing that can prove or disprove it currently. I'll simply say again though that it's a logical step to get people introduced to another form of sales that they make, and typically introduction is all that is necessary for such things.

    I don't support Day 1 DLC at all, as I agree it's something that can be provided with the initial cost of the game. I'm simply trying to understand why they do it, and they're doing it because they can get away with it as well as it provides another way they can make money from the game. 

    If you don't care to understand why companies are releasing Day 1 DLC that's your prerogative, but just because I attempt to understand it doesn't mean I'm trying to make them look good for doing it. Some people try to rationalize why people do certain things instead of simply claiming it's for greed or power, when it's not always quite that simple. Trying to understand it is a big part of working on how we can get rid of it. 

    Lastly, I don't mean to be rude but do you really want to use one of the most anticipated games of the year as an example of DLC marketing? Again, it's not about us, it's about the people who don't watch such trailers or read gaming sites regularly. They are the majority and they are buying the DLC. Marketing it to us is hardly worthwhile.

     

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,497Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I don't accept your argument that day 1 DLC helps them sell future DLC. There is just no evidence of it. All it serves to do is support the mans argument without any evidence and attempt to spin day 1 DLC in a better light. Basically, I don't accept your premise for a really good reason. There is no reason to accept your premise.

     

    When it comes to your argument about developers not being able to market their DLC, here is an example of that happening:

    http://www.gamespot.com/mass-effect-3/videos/resurgence-mass-effect-3-dlc-trailer-6370345/

    That's fine if you don't accept it, as there is no evidence of it one way or the other as we have nothing that can prove or disprove it currently. I'll simply say again though that it's a logical step to get people introduced to another form of sales that they make, and typically introduction is all that is necessary for such things.

    I don't support Day 1 DLC at all, as I agree it's something that can be provided with the initial cost of the game. I'm simply trying to understand why they do it, and they're doing it because they can get away with it as well as it provides another way they can make money from the game. 

    Lastly, I don't mean to be rude but do you really want to use one of the most anticipated games of the year as an example of DLC marketing? Again, it's not about us, it's about the people who don't watch such trailers or read gaming sites regularly. They are the majority and they are buying the DLC. Marketing it to us is hardly worthwhile.

    Yes, of course. The person that made the comments is employed by the company that made that trailer. Many other companies advertise their DLC in a similar way. Why would I not use an example of DLC advertising from the very company that the person we are discussing is employed by?

  • sicness277sicness277 Springfield, VAPosts: 39Member
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by sicness277
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I don't accept your argument that day 1 DLC helps them sell future DLC. There is just no evidence of it. All it serves to do is support the mans argument without any evidence and attempt to spin day 1 DLC in a better light. Basically, I don't accept your premise for a really good reason. There is no reason to accept your premise.

     

    When it comes to your argument about developers not being able to market their DLC, here is an example of that happening:

    http://www.gamespot.com/mass-effect-3/videos/resurgence-mass-effect-3-dlc-trailer-6370345/

    That's fine if you don't accept it, as there is no evidence of it one way or the other as we have nothing that can prove or disprove it currently. I'll simply say again though that it's a logical step to get people introduced to another form of sales that they make, and typically introduction is all that is necessary for such things.

    I don't support Day 1 DLC at all, as I agree it's something that can be provided with the initial cost of the game. I'm simply trying to understand why they do it, and they're doing it because they can get away with it as well as it provides another way they can make money from the game. 

    Lastly, I don't mean to be rude but do you really want to use one of the most anticipated games of the year as an example of DLC marketing? Again, it's not about us, it's about the people who don't watch such trailers or read gaming sites regularly. They are the majority and they are buying the DLC. Marketing it to us is hardly worthwhile.

    Yes, of course. The person that made the comments is employed by the company that made that trailer. Many other companies advertise their DLC in a similar way. Why would I not use an example of DLC advertising from the very company that the person we are discussing is employed by?

    My point was that you'll obviously get more advertising for DLC from such a popular game, just like with Skyrim. I'm talking about with other games, such as their vastly popular sports titles, they could view Day 1 DLC as a platform to introduce how you can obtain their DLC. They're obviously not spending the same amount of money advertising Day 1 DLC on all of their titles, so they must come up with other methods to present them to consumers.

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,941Member Uncommon
    Total bullshit. When you develop a system or a game you are allways up against it to try and build as much value as you can risk free before the release date, you can chop bit's out and sell it separately but that has got bigger all with trying to produce the best possible content and value for money, it's simply greed, as they know fine well people want the biggest and best experience when they initially enter a game. Weeks later the game is less appealing and therefore less likely to entice the purchase.

    rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar

    Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,941Member Uncommon
    ^^ by bioware

    rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar

    Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,497Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sicness277

    If you don't care to understand why companies are releasing Day 1 DLC that's your prerogative, but just because I attempt to understand it doesn't mean I'm trying to make them look good for doing it. Some people try to rationalize why people do certain things instead of simply claiming it's for greed or power, when it's not always quite that simple. Trying to understand it is a big part of working on how we can get rid of it. 

    I do care to understand why they release day 1 DLC content. I just don't come to the same conclusion as you. I think it's because consumers buy it in high volume like the man said. 53% of people bought day 1 DLC for Dragon Age: Origins. (On a side note, mentioning only one game out of the many that Bioware put out to get his numbers is misleading).

     

    But this isn't benificial to the consumer like the man implies. They don't do it because people are moving through content too fast. They don't do it because, like you presume, it will sell more future DLC content. They do it to make more money. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. But the man is spinning it to sound like the market requires it. The reality is that day 1 DLC is not, in any way, "required" to make the industry work or make consumers happy. Actually, it often has the effect of making consumers unhappy.

     

    I'm also not sure where I ever mentioned, at any time, greed or power. I intentionally did not use those types of arguments because I feel like they are unfair. I feel like you used them here to attempt to apply them to me, which I find... unsettling. I know that you said "some people," but because you quoted me, it seems like the intended target might have been me.

  • KothosesKothoses GalwayPosts: 758Member Uncommon

    Ok so here is a question and a scenario.

     

    DLC is developed by teams detached from the ones working on the game, if that DLC is ready on day 1 would you rather they heald it back for 30 days for PR reasons?

     

    Aslong as the DLC adds to my experience, both inside and out of the main game, I personally am ok with it.  Even if its out on day 1, the alternative is the episodic content method and well... that does not work either.

     

    What I do wish they would do though is A make a clear upfront statement of intent as to the MINIMUM Amount of DLC coming out for the game (not time scales just the amount and what type of content) and then allow for a "Full pass" to be bought in advance that gives me access to the entire game (and given as part of any collectors edition).

     

    Ala-carte gaming is here its now about making the noise to state how we want it.

    Promoting thought a new Gaming video blog http://www.youtube.com/user/quinnthalas discussing games, gamers and the internet with gameplay footage as background.

  • vgamervgamer Texas, IAPosts: 195Member
    Originally posted by Kothoses

    Ok so here is a question and a scenario.

     

    DLC is developed by teams detached from the ones working on the game, if that DLC is ready on day 1 would you rather they heald it back for 30 days for PR reasons?

     

    Aslong as the DLC adds to my experience, both inside and out of the main game, I personally am ok with it.  Even if its out on day 1, the alternative is the episodic content method and well... that does not work either.

     

    What I do wish they would do though is A make a clear upfront statement of intent as to the MINIMUM Amount of DLC coming out for the game (not time scales just the amount and what type of content) and then allow for a "Full pass" to be bought in advance that gives me access to the entire game (and given as part of any collectors edition).

     

    Ala-carte gaming is here its now about making the noise to state how we want it.

    Here's a counter question and scenario then:

     

    Imagine you're the guy who makes the calls about the production and design and your goal is to maximize profits for the shareholders.

    You know day 1DLC is profitable so:

    Would you:   A. hire a new team of developers to develop specific day 1 DLC

                          B: Cut of some of you developer team who's working on the main game and focus on the DLC

                          C: Take a chunk out of your main game and use it as DLC (note B and C are highly similar)

     

    Remember, you want to maximize profits. No other goals.

  • paroxysmparoxysm Nowhere, INPosts: 437Member
    Originally posted by Kothoses

    Ok so here is a question and a scenario.

     

    DLC is developed by teams detached from the ones working on the game, if that DLC is ready on day 1 would you rather they heald it back for 30 days for PR reasons?

     

    Aslong as the DLC adds to my experience, both inside and out of the main game, I personally am ok with it.  Even if its out on day 1, the alternative is the episodic content method and well... that does not work either.

     

    What I do wish they would do though is A make a clear upfront statement of intent as to the MINIMUM Amount of DLC coming out for the game (not time scales just the amount and what type of content) and then allow for a "Full pass" to be bought in advance that gives me access to the entire game (and given as part of any collectors edition).

     

    Ala-carte gaming is here its now about making the noise to state how we want it.

    In your scenario, the maker is making a lot of assumptions.  Assumptions of mechanics and direction not changing.  Assumptions about sales and further interest.  The DLC sales are based on the same factors that are pushing sales of your actual release.  Plus, it means buyers are expecting certain things instead of trying the release before buying the DLC.  I'm sure it happens, but I'm not sure it's cost effective. 

    What happens if you get major pushback about a feature in the game that is also already in the DLC.  With the DLC already being out as well, you limit your sales of the DLC unless you pull it to make changes.  What about people who already bought it?  Do you roll with it and make changes in DLC 2 or do you patch in changes that affect the release and the DLC?

    Do you think buyer's remorse is better or worse for the person who bought the release and the DLC sight unseen?  As in, if someone buy's both and invests more at the start as a result, does that make the expectations higher and the possible let down worse?

  • CalerxesCalerxes LondonPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon
    To me its this or the initial price of the game goes up, with this method you get to decide whether you buy it or not the other way you have no choice and we know at the end of the day its all about money and gamers want to spend fuck all and get the world for it.

    This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up™ the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon

    Lies, we all know bio has absolutely no idea what players want, this article is bs.

  • CyclopsSlayerCyclopsSlayer Minneapolis, MNPosts: 532Member
    At that rate, why not make it 100% DLC? Every quest, every mission, every weapon, every mob opponent?
    That way players can consume it all at their speed and the devs/producers can suck even more cash from the players pockets.
  • stevebmbsqdstevebmbsqd Orlando, FLPosts: 448Member
    Originally posted by Loke666

    Yeah, we love paying for stuff that Bioware made with the game but decided to let us pay extra money for instead of include it in the game just like everyone else.

    It is fine to add miniexpansions and expansions to a released game but all the stuff you make while you do the game should be included in it.

    Anyone thinking DLCs will give you more to play is wrong, the old way when they released the full game and gave you full expansions actually gave you more content for less money.

    Yeah, enough people will actually buy those DLCs but not because they want DLCs but because they more or less feel forced to buy the entire game.

    This is just EA raising their prices a lot. If it would have been about choices they would lower the prices of the game and its expansions as much as the DLCs cost (or at least half of it), it is about shaking out some more money of the poor customers.

    Personally I think it just leads to more piracy instead, it does not feel as morally bad when the devs are screwing us first. Or people will do like me and just get another game that does not charge way too much for small and rather pointless stuff (like the Emporium in DA).

    Bioware have really lost it since EA bought them up.

    Do you honestly think other companies aren't working on DLC content as the game ships? Bioware just let it be available from the first day while other companies might wait a month or two. As long as the game is complete and the DLC is just add on stuff, how were you screwed? Of course they are trying to make more money. I remember like you do when all of this extra stuff was free or came out in a full fleged expansion pack. The thing is, games have production budgets bigger than movies and they need to recoup their investments and make a large enough profit to invest in the production of other games. If it keeps more people employed for a longer period of time and allows them to make more quality games then I am all for it.

  • paroxysmparoxysm Nowhere, INPosts: 437Member
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    To me its this or the initial price of the game goes up, with this method you get to decide whether you buy it or not the other way you have no choice and we know at the end of the day its all about money and gamers want to spend fuck all and get the world for it.

    Isn't the standard US $60 game supposed to jump to US $70 a game this fall?

    I think it has more to do with bang for the buck.  People want to feel like their investment was worthwhile.  Not everyone expects everything for free, but pretty much everyone wants to feel like they got their money's worth.  Which, is very subjective.

    Games keep hitting record sales numbers in a genre that keeps listing dropping earnings.  So, either something is not adding up, or the profits are going to fewer makers.  But, just like most companies who layoff employees first and look for efficiency gains after in the face of their employees having lower morale and looking outside the company, the gaming industry is looking for ways to increase costs first to make up for lower bottom line profits.

  • paroxysmparoxysm Nowhere, INPosts: 437Member
    Originally posted by CyclopsSlay
    At that rate, why not make it 100% DLC? Every quest, every mission, every weapon, every mob opponent? That way players can consume it all at their speed and the devs/producers can suck even more cash from the players pockets.

    Because it would increase the overall cost of the game as a whole.  Which, not everyone will go for.

  • TenkouseiTenkousei BrusselsPosts: 72Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

    Do you honestly think other companies aren't working on DLC content as the game ships? Bioware just let it be available from the first day while other companies might wait a month or two. As long as the game is complete and the DLC is just add on stuff, how were you screwed? Of course they are trying to make more money. I remember like you do when all of this extra stuff was free or came out in a full fleged expansion pack. The thing is, games have production budgets bigger than movies and they need to recoup their investments and make a large enough profit to invest in the production of other games. If it keeps more people employed for a longer period of time and allows them to make more quality games then I am all for it.

    Probably a case of nostalgia here, but the latest batch of games weren't really what one would call quality games. BF3, COD, ME 3, ... Imagine if they'd asked for extra money back in the NES days. "Sure you get to play Super Mario Bros, but if you want the flower power up or the star power up, it's gonna cost you an extra 15 bucks". (leaving aside that it wouldn't have been technically possible, of course).

    It's like someone said earlier in the thread. For now DLC seems to be "extra" content, but nothing's stopping the suits from offering you a very basic game, f.i. a shooter with one gun, one map, one role, a short SP campaign, and asking you for more after you've dropped the first $60.

    I remember when Deus Ex HR was realeased, i bought the post launch DLC (the boat level). I felt ripped off when i realized it didn't even have a proper boss at the end of said expac. They should have included it in the original game, but they went the cash grab-way.

    My mistake though, i'm a sucker for falling for such a simple marketting trick.

Sign In or Register to comment.