Are Game Consoles Ruining DLC? 399
A round-table discussion at Gametopius looks into the state of downloadable content for games as it has evolved over the past several years, going from an occasional, welcome supplement to being a common marketing strategy for most of the industry, frequently causing irritation over pricing and availability.
"All of the map packs so far released for the Call of Duty games have been $10 each to download on consoles through closed networks, while PC gamers could download those same packs for free off of FileShack or somewhere else. Valve's own Team Fortress 2 has received a significant amount of DLC that's been completely free on the PC. Xbox owners of the same game, however, have only received perhaps half of that content, and they have had to pay for it in $5 packs. Why is this? The idea of this kind of content delivery was scarcely heard of on consoles, so console gamers see no reason not to pay for it. But on the PC, these amounts of content are usually just considered parts of patches. Furthermore, why pay for a few extra maps and costumes when modders are making and offering new ones for free all the time?"
Different Audiences? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple. Stop paying for it.
If people pay money for something, that's because they think it's worth that money (eBay syndrome). If you get "more" for free on the PC, use a PC.
Just think about it for a second. Duh.... (Score:1, Insightful)
That's what you get when you buy a console, or console games.
Think about it. The console is a much better business proposal for a company. Stable platform to develop against, and it's locked down so the can charge for all the extra stuff you would get on a PC for free. If you make the mistake of stepping into their preferred market (i.e. consoles) you get what you asked for. Whether or not you thought about it in advance (or at all) is your problem. Learn to think like a big corporation and you will no longer be surprised or disappointed by them.
Announcing DLC before game release (Score:5, Insightful)
Closed vs Open (Score:5, Insightful)
Consoles are a closed system where the owners have little choice about where they get content (sure, you can hack the firmware, but only a small fraction of owners will), PCs are an open system where owners can get content from all over. It's hardly surprising that users of closed systems get screwed.
This is why every tech company wants to own a closed system.
DLC is used to fight second hand sales (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of companies announce DLC for a game right after, or even before it was released. Buy doing this they hope people will not trade in the game, and thus reduce the number of second hand copies that are available.
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also TF2 on the PC is delivered by Valve itself through Steam, but on the xbox it's delivered through Microsoft. On the PC you downloaded the whole game in the first place and by running Steam you expect to automatically receive updates, but on the xbox you only buy a disk, and Microsoft can say "if you want extras you have to pay".
I don't even understand why people would buy TF2 on a console anyway. Updates are such a mess compared with Steam (and you have to pay extra), you have to play on a controller (useless for first-person shooters), and the community is small. Also you can't use the huge base of custom maps and skins and custom sounds and custom models that the community has built. And you play in some pathetic TV resolution, subpar even in HD. I don't have any sympathy.
Include A Refund Disclaimer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PC = No certification by a 3rd party (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever Valve or any other company wants to release DLC on the Xbox 360 or PS3, they have to pay either Microsoft or Sony to certify the content. They charge gamers to make up for the cost of this certification.
How much do you think MS charges to certify a map pack? Its not going to be 10s of thousands. If they just wanted to make up for the cost certification, they could charge 50 cents and still turn a profit. (Of course, charging 50 cents ends up costing 25 cents in transaction fees, so make it 75 cents...)
Of course, the fact that gamers will pay for downloadable content on consoles is certainly a good reason by itself...
This. They can, so they do. The price is set based on what people will pay, not on what it cost. (If it cost more than people would pay, they wouldn't do it, but the set price really has very little to do directly with the cost, beyond determining whether its worth doing in the first place. Business 101.)
Re:Console Gaming Bill Of Rights... (Score:3, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with rights. When you buy a console, you're buying a particular type of premium platform: streamlined game delivery, dedicated controller, etc. It's no different than people who buy Apple products paying for common bits of software (or more for hardware) that PC users get for free because of the much larger market with far poorer quality control.
Quality control is one of the biggest advantages of console gaming, and it's long been a complaint of PC gamers that their versions of games are buggy because the studios don't put the QA time into them because they can always release patches, while console games have to be relatively bug free on first release.
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:3, Insightful)
That in itself would be the main reason I would never own a console these days. While I did have one back in the early days of NES before the cube, that's all cartridges. The problem is, you're paying for the same content that some are getting for free under the 'pass, clean, and then go' label.
While I realize that not all kids of today are the main console players, this form of stuff is just setting people up for the next generation of micropayments. It's not like it hasn't been tried with other stuff, eventually one of two things will happen. People will get pissed off over the lack of content, and start moving back to the PC en-mass, after all cheap gaming rigs can be made for sub $500 these days. Or, they'll try to nail PC users the same, in which case I'll hazard that PC users for the most part will go. Ho-Hum and ignore it like usual, because alot of us are crotchety, cranky, old asses who like our money.
Why is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the market supports it.
Re:Announcing DLC before game release (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your argument makes no sense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:5, Insightful)
I own an Xbox 360 and a PC (obviously). If I can get a game on the PC I will choose that over the console usually. Stuff like TF2, L4D etc... I fail to see the point of them on the consoles. FPS games on a console are a big bag of fail IMO. Only people who defend them in my experience are ones who haven't spent years using the superior mouse/keyboard combination.
For the DLC, I believe Microsoft FORCE Valve to charge. Gabe (who looks more like Peter from Family Guy by the day) has said that they want to give it away, but MS won't let them. Not sure how much truth there is in that given Valve have recently turned to the dark side and taken this DLC to its natural conclusion and are releasing what should be DLC for Left 4 Dead as a full title.
The games I have on my Xbox are ones you can't GET on the PC, or ones that work best with a gamepad. Like Burnout Paradise. The PC version is out, but I'd much rather sit on my couch and play on my HDTV with my kids than sit at my desk and play it.
Though the situation with DLC is getting crazy. Two recent examples:
EA had DLC for Madden on release day! I bought Madden on Friday. (First time I've ever bought a Madden title within two years of its release.) Pop the disk in to discover there is already paid content to download. It amounts to super scouts for franchise mode and the ability to unretire players etc... And play as any player you'd like in Superstar mode... But again, release day and after slapping down $70 for the game EA go "Give us a little more."
Worse still is that it's already been announced what the first paid DLC will be for Beatles Rock Band. Game isn't even OUT yet and they've already basically said "You're getting an incomplete game and will have to pay again."
The whole DLC thing really annoys me. If it's something really does add to the game, like Big Surf Island for Burnout Paradise, then fine. (I bought the game used, so even with that the game still only cost me about $20). But announcing stuff you're going to have to pay for before the game is even released?! That is just despicable. But then I guess at least you have warning and can say "I'm not going to buy that." (Like anybody will actually do that.)
Companies now realise that instead of a full expansion for, say, $20, they can now put it out in chunks and make twice that.
The problem with DLC is it's a GREAT idea, but greed has, like with so many other things in life, ruined it.
Re:PC = No certification by a 3rd party (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because the 360 is NOT profitable (Score:5, Insightful)
No one seems to want to admit it but the business model that Microsoft employs for console gaming is seriously flawed. Sony's is a little better because at least you get onto the network for free.
Microsoft brags about their success but what they don't mention is that they need to over charge you for accessories (ie wifi adapters and hardrives) and they need to charge you for any little thing you do online.
One reason the 360 has no browser (and mouse / keyboard) is to stop them from being accused of trying to make their own closed PC. But I suspect the other reason for a lack of a browser (and therefore a lesser experience than all other consoles online) is to keep the system as closed as possible so they can nickel and dime you to death all so they can eek out tiny profits which they've only just started to do recently.
The Wii is the cheapest system all around and part of the reason for that is because Nintendo makes a profit on the hardware. They don't need to fuck you about to make up for selling unprofitable hardware. The Wii also has a browser which gives you access to free browser-based games. They do charge you to download new games from their shop but that's understandable imo and even then you get to earn points from buying games which result in free games to download. This is despite the fact their games are cheaper and yet they're still making money hand over fist.
The old system, which MS works under, doesn't work well when every system has some success. It relies pretty much on there only being one big success per generation to make great profits. Had Sony not cocked up in a few areas it would probably be worse for both them and MS with numbers being more evenly divided.
It's only going to get worse and that's why they want to move out of physical sales and into downloadable games. It'll make it much easier for them to jerk us around even more.
Re:Console Gamers Shouldn't Complain (Score:3, Insightful)
They might as well just shove the game out and watch people eat up their broken rubbish. If the game fails don't patch it and you've saved some money on testing and development.
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call a gamepad "designed" for precision aiming in two dimensions. You will inevitably require some sort of computer-assisted targeting (we PC users call this "autoaim") to make up for the fact that you're approximating X-Y coordinates with a severely motion-limited joystick. Some games even go so far to include explicit target designation where the fun of playing a first person shooter is diluted down to the interactivity of a quicktime event. Select your enemy, press a button to fire, first person to get the timing right wins because your shots will never miss. It's bullshit. If you took those handicaps away from gamepad players and put them on the same servers as keyboard-and-mouse players, the gamepad players would ragequit in less than five minutes cuz there would be no contest whatsoever.
Re:You didn't buy that console (Score:4, Insightful)
Believe it or not, but that "$1200" gaming PC is low-end. (for a gaming PC)
$250 for a graphics card, $250 for a CPU, $200 for a motherboard, $100 for a terabyte hard drive, $100 for a case, some RAM, a DVD drive and a few other odds and ends; that will play any modern game with decent performance. $1200 may even leave you enough to buy a monitor on top.
'Low-end' is an Athlon X2 with integrated graphics or a cheap graphics card; that won't cost you much more than $500.
Ok, I'd forgotten the Windows tax in both cases, so add whatever Windows costs on top... it's a long time since I've built a PC where I had to pay for the operating system.
Re:Implications (Score:3, Insightful)
The implication is better reflected by Resident Evil 5.
Release multiplayer mode as a separate product, with it's own cost, a few days later?
Does anyone really believe they were so swamped they couldn't include it on the disc, and were able to code it in two days' time?
It's obvious they just removed content from the game, and released it as DLC, to milk money out of customers for something that was planned from the beginning.
Imagine if a racing game came out with only "Career mode" unlocked, then you had to pay $10 each for "Time trial", "Single Race", "Versus", "Practice", "Co-op", and so on, until a $60 game costs well over $100 for what was normally expected to be in such a game.
That is the type of bullshit parent is campaigning against.
Re:Announcing DLC before game release (Score:2, Insightful)
EA is trying it with The Sims 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
If you go to The Sims 3 website and look at some DLC that was user generated and do the math on the costs in euros for say a colored funiture set... well, then you head over to the piratebay or whatever and download the extra's instead. Or stay legal and use pure-user created content from free sites that do NOT charge 10 dollars for a funiture set.
The problem is greed. The first sign is the POINTS system. Don't matter what you call them, they exist for one reason alone, to hide the dollar/euro cost.
There is NOT a single other reason for them, you can just say this DLC costs 10 dollars and not 2000 M$ (MS dollars).
BUT then it would be far to clear just how bloody expensive DLC is.
It wouldn't be so bad if DLC were like the old school expansions but often they are nothing more then an extended patch. Some extra maps, maybe a quests that didn't make it into the main game.
Take the DLC for recent Bioware games like Kotor and Mass Effect. It is nice but barely a fraction of the original gameplay, so why is its price NOT a fraction of the full price?
Mostly it is pure greed. Not just by the game publishers but by the console owners. ALL the console companies LOVE the idea of the media-center. They have a wet dream of the consumer hooked into their grid for their entertainment with their wallet hooked up as a constant infusion of cash. Watch a show, pay. Play a game, pay. Download a trailer, pay. Listen to music, pay. Download a ringtone, pay. Watch an ad, pay. It is the dream behind the AOL and all the portal ISP's that dreamed of selling you every bit of content and it is the dream of Sony (why do you think a hardware company has a media division?) and MS (MSNBC, X-box, media-center etc etc) and to a lesser extent Nintendo (they don't want to sell you media, just games).
The console companies are VASTLY different from the PC companies. You will NEVER see a console company release old titles for free just for the hell of it. It is not the way they work. The console companies and those that produce for them are USED to demand payment for everything and get paid for everything. Think just how odd it is that a game publisher has to pay a console company to be allowed to produce a game for its platform. That would be like the canned anchovy company having to pay the frozen pizza companies to be allowed to release their product. Decal makers to pay car manufacturers.
But that is the way consoles work and it is the reason that console owners pay often a HIGHER price for their games despite the fact that the producer saves himself a fortune for not having to test it on a hundred different configurations. Console owners pay the price for the system that allows consoles makers to reap fast profits on all fronts.
Remember, ID does NOT make a profit when their game forces you to upgrade your PC to the next generation. But Sony does make money if you upgrade your PS2 to a PS3 to play the latest EA game that EA is already paying them for. That is a nice deal!
The problem is that console makers have little choice. They picked a format that is produced by companies that want to milk every last cent from them.
PC gamers are on the whole not going to put up for it. We pay more for our hardware but expect a different attitude from our suppliers. So far it seems clear that a LOT of publishers understand this and we get the silly situation that Console owners pay MORE for their games, have to pay for any DLC and not get any user-made content while PC owners pay LESS for their games, get DLC for free and tons of free content made users.
It would be a real tragedy. If I owned a console.
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Are you saying that using a mouse and WASD is overly complex for the typical consol gamer? Seriously? I think you do console gamers an injustice. Mouse and Keyboard takes almost no time to learn. I spent longer figuring out the controller in Halo then the mouse.
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well it's not like the developers just wake up one morning a few months after release and decide to do DLC. If they have plans to sell DLC after release, why not announce it?
Also I agree that mouse/keyboard is a much better control scheme. "Hold the stick until the cursor gets to where you want it, then let go" can't even compare to the precision of directly mapping movement on the mousepad to movement on the screen.
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:3, Insightful)
Humm, when I play games on my PC, I rarely have to move my hand around the keyboard. My default keymap that I try to use and adapt to all games is:
S,Z,X and C for movement, left-shift run/walk modifier
D for jump and A for duck/crouch
E is for use/activate items/doors/etc
R reload, F flashlight
Q and W are for weapons modifiers, eg. switch between weapons
G is grenade
T,V,B,tab,left-ctrl and spacebar for custom stuff and finally
1,2,3,4...0 for quick selecting stuff, usually weapons or spells whatnot
I might be doing this wrong, but when I play FPS games on my PS3, I need three thumbs; left for movement thumbstick, right for aiming/view control thumbstick and third thumb to use those four buttons to fire/shoot. Driving games are usually better as I can use the left side buttons for steering, right side buttons for accelerator/brake. I really really loathe the thumbsticks, they are inaccurate and difficult to use.
A better question: Is DLC ruining games? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't even need to teach them that; they'll pick up on it on their own. Probably half the people on slashdot have been playing "violent" video games since they were 9, maybe earlier, and those people are well adjusted (at least as well adjusted as you can be, posting on slashdot) people in their 20's-mid-late-20s. Mortal Kombat came out what, in 1992? Yeah I guess church attendance is down but so is crime murder and violent crime in general. Anyone giving you BS for "exposing" your kids to mainstream media like quake or doom needs to get their head screwed on straight.
Re:Different Audiences? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Rock Band DLC has never bothered me, because it has always been at a relatively fair price and worth it. Unlike a lot of DLC options you can actually cherry pick (download only songs you want), and they've been decent enough to arrange promotions and free songs (like "Still Alive").