It has become commonplace in recent years for developers to work on and announce download content for games before they're even released.
But that's not how the industry works, says Gears of War 3 developer Epic's Cliff Blesinski and Rod Fergusson. Good DLC takes time.
"What people need to understand is that extra content is something that you have to plan," said Fergusson before Bleszinki chimed in, "You don't just lift up a rock and say, 'oh shit, there's new levels!'"
Fergusson added: "There are people who think that the first day of DLC development is the day after you launched. That's not the way it works.
"A lot of it is that you have to prepare and plan and manage your resources and your people and everything to allow for that," he said in the latest issue of Game Informer magazine.
"I think that as the industry has matured we've gotten more into that," added Fergusson, explaining that DLC is another way - as opposed to EA's widely adopted Online Pass system - to tackle the used game market.
"It's less about shipping what's left over. It's not about, 'Oh, we had this map left over'... it's keeping the disc in the tray. In a used game culture that you have to actively fight against, I think DLC is one of the ways that you do that."
Epic has extensive DLC plans for Gears of War 3.
Comments
14 comments so far...
JJM-NUKE on 16 Nov '11 said:
DLC should be based on customer feedback not just so they can release loads of crap continuously. Broken steel for Fallout 3 is a good example as it was asked for by fans and improved the game.
EvilDog77 on 16 Nov '11 said:
Yeah, but the original end to Fallout 3 was crap, like they ran out of time and decided 'f**k it. We'll kill the player here and leave it at that'.
azz72 on 16 Nov '11 said:
Have no problem paying for dlc as long as its worth my money and not a load of horse armour
DAEDALUS79 on 17 Nov '11 said:
I dont mind DLC but it irks me when developers announce and even worse release DLC before a game has even been released. DLC should be a tool to further extend games lives after launch, not as a pay wall to lock features out of the game ive just paid for.
jackimo on 17 Nov '11 said:
Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy pre-owned games when all the ideas behind them are second hand?
It's going to get to the point where games will become unplayable without a dlc or an access code. That's basically what they want to do, they just don't think they can get away with it yet. That's basically what this whole thing is about. I was confused because I don't really care about dlc for the most part, because most of it doesn't add any value to the game (I'm talking avatars, character costumes etc), but then the guy in the interview was all like "actively fighting against pre-owned" and that's when I knew what this whole thing was about. It's the Arkham City/Catwoman argument.
bamozzy on 17 Nov '11 said:
As far as I am concerned, DLC should be used to keep the person who bought the game continually playing and not tempted to trade the game in.
I believe that the developers should do more to keep the players interest in the game, but shouldn't penalise those players who have to rely on the 2nd hand market. Also some players may become dedicated fans after purchasing a 2nd hand game and purchase additional DLC for their game - I doubt that they would be tempted to buy a 2nd hand game if they HAD to buy DLC. I believe that 2nd hand games can increase the sales of DLC bringing in additional income for the developers.
Also by buying and trying games from the 2nd hand market they may well tempt them into buying new games from the developers/series in the future.
A second hand game should come with everything that came when purchased as it would encourage more people to try the game and increase the likelyhood of further purchases in the future (additional dlc and further games)
DLC (in particular online pass) is being used wrongly by some developers - maybe they are afraid that their games are not good enough to keep the interest of the purchaser.
rhyfel on 17 Nov '11 said:
in gears of war 3s case it isnt even DLC its WHC "withheld content" its all ready on the disk when you buy it. its just another way for these greedy game publishers to rip you off even more than thay already do, its like buying a brand new car and thay dont give you the engine you have to buy that separately its just legalised robbery.
jubbgi01 on 17 Nov '11 said:
Their talking crap. No change for cliffy there. If that content is ready for launch day, it should be on the disc and part of the initial price paid. If that involves a one use key, like back to karkand, then so be it. First hand buyers get an incentive, but second hand users dont lose any key content. Paid for launch DLC is a slap in the face of loyal fans and should be stopped. And loading that content onto the disc and then charging to unlock it. Even worse.
I dont think I've bought any DLC since undead nightmare. I'm sick of buying games then getting charged a tenner a go to keep up with all the maps and features that are added. The only company that seem to really respect their customers is Valve. L4D2 was released 2 years ago yet gets regular updates and extras all the time for free. Plus the fact you can mod it and use cutom maps, just like in the old days of certain epic games.
Desert Fox on 17 Nov '11 said:
How does DLC help fight the pre-owned game market? It doesn't exclusively target those who purchase games second hand, it targets first time buyers as well. I really hate DLC because it often asks for a quarter of the price you bought the game at, but delivers, what, a sixteenth of the content the original game supplied? I'm much more happy with the online pass system because the just encourages you to buy the game new (which I usually do anyway).
I like what EA have done with BF3 and Back to Karkand. It was the first game I have pre-ordered in ages because it actually offered a good incentive to do so. I have no idea if Back to Karkand will be any good yet, but it certainly doesn't seem like the kind of thing in which I'd be happy paying an extra tenner.
TheRandyNinja on 17 Nov '11 said:
theres a diffrence between dlc like added singleplayer content thats actually worth the cash and then theres gun skins that should have been free to unlock to give an incentive to play if activision can leave a few skins in cod im sure epic could have done the same its just greed and a insult, you just paid £40 on a game then there like here sum skins we want more money.
BOYD1981 on 17 Nov '11 said:
Love it or hate it, developers plan and make DLC before a game's launch
There, fixed that for ya.
bamozzy on 17 Nov '11 said:
Surely the best way to fight this used game culture is to make the game better in the first place. If the game is/was good enough to the purchaser he/she would not want to trade it in - Also if the DLC was better (not camo skins etc) Then that is just one way of extending the shelf life of the game. Having unlockable content (such as camo skins) is also another way to prolong shelf life as many players would keep playing the game to unlock these.
Second hand games can generate extra income for the publishers too as trade-in games do not come with the downloads of the previous owner - Some games therefore can generate multiple DLC downloads which otherwise would not have been sold (for example if I traded in my copy of Black Ops, the 2nd user would need/may want to download the map packs for it too resulting in up to another £40 worth of DLC - therefore my 1 copy of the game could generate up to £80 worth of DLC and it could go on to generate more)
bamozzy on 17 Nov '11 said:
The majority of people trading in games is due to boredom or because they have completed and/or unlocked everything. Games like MW for example encourage long term use - certainly within the multiplayer - as you need to carry on playing to unlock attachments/camo skins etc - they cannot be bought.
I have completed a number of games and then started them again (Dead Space 1 & 2, Uncharted 3, Gears 3) all in recent months as certain modes are not unlocked (in dead space certain items are only available on the 2nd playthrough) Also, to get all the Achievements/trophies is not possible on one playthrough (number of kills for certain weapons in Uncharted 3) but can be achieved by a subsequent playthrough. These things help keep a game on my shelf rather than opt to trade it in.
I may not have purchased Mass Effect 2 if I hadn't purchased Mass Effect on the 2nd hand market as generally that type of game does not rank as high as others and could not have justified purchasing from new. However, having purchased from the second hand market originally, I had to get Mass Effect 2 around the time it was released and I am really looking forward to getting ME3. This was also the case with the Assassins Creed series too - I certainly would not have bought Brotherhood new if I hadn't purchased AC on the 2nd hand market first.
I do believe that there is value to having a second hand market to the developers for these very reasons - especially as they continue to make subsequent games. When you look at the recent top quality releases (gears 3, Uncharted 3, MW3, etc) all coming at the same time, then gamers need to justify which game to purchase new. Many games that have been released recently have had to wait due to lack of finances (at £40 each - that's a lot of money) and I had to base my decision on previous games in the franchises. Would I have bought MW3 (Hardened Edition) at a midnight launch if I had not experienced playing a CoD game before - NO!!! I also shouldn't feel forced to buy a game new at release to make sure I get DLC content included instead of a better game that does not require DLC to get the full benefit of.
Fallout 3 had a very disappointing conclusion and (if you stumbled upon it before completing many of the side quests) ended your game rather abruptly. If this happened in other games too, I would expect to see LOTS of Fallout3 games being traded in. At least 'Broken Steel' DLC addressed this and probably helped prolong the interest of the purchaser - a good use of DLC.
Unfortunately though a lot of DLC is rubbish and has no beneficial reward for purchasing. Avatar Items, camo skins, etc that have no impact on the game itself - personally I believe these should be unlockables and unlocked from within the game by completing various challenges/achieving a certain score - this would encourage more people to keep playing the game and again stopping them from trading in. These types of DLC are nothing more than ripping off the fans - and they are probably the ones that support the developers by buying new in the first place. Most DLC also do not represent value for money - black ops map packs are well known for being over-priced - especially Rezurection (4 zombie maps that were in W@W and 1 new map for 1200 ms points) I could have bought several arcarde games for that much!!!! 1200 ms points is equivalent to approx £10 but do you get approx 25% of what Black Ops has to offer extra - NO!!!!). So I also begrudge being held to ransom to purchase an exceptionally over-priced DLC just to play a game - DLC costs I am sure are down to the greed of the publishers and should be more regulated (based on what the content offers) price wise.
So in summary, I think it is down to the developers to give a better gaming experience and prolong the purchasers interest to stop them wanting to trade-in
Sideys on 17 Nov '11 said:
Pathetic reasoning for adding on extra profit income. Marvel Vs Capcom 3? extra characters that were already 90% there on the disc memory but capcom decided to charge extra to get them.
EXAMPLE:
Deus EX HR - I cannot express how much i LOVE this game. It f**ks me off however when i read that there is a "Lost" mission for DLC announced before the game is scheduled to release. I play through the game and you can spot where the writers have made up an excuse to lose 2-days. That shows they knew about it, decided to alter the scripting of that part of the game just to squeeze out extra paid DLC.
I sell a car with 3 WHEELS, explain that there would be a 4th but said there would need to be extra resource to make the 4th WHEEL and i would need to charge for it, i would be called a FRAUD.