EPIC says why they think on-disc DLC is rad

[Kopikatsu]

?We had begun DLC packs early enough, and with the extension to our schedule. It meant we had that stuff done before we shipped.? He was talking specifically about this first DLC pack. The others aren?t on the disc. This first one included weapons and maps that needed to be visible to all players, even those who weren?t going to pay for them.

Game developers don?t want to splinter their multiplayer community into sub-communities that each have to own the exact same pieces of content to play with each other. To get around that, they often provide new DLC to all players, ensuring that all of them can see the content. But only those who pay for it can use the DLC weapon skin or host the DLC map. Fergusson and his team knew they?d have to do something like that. ?One of the concerns was we would have to have people download compatibility packs because, with a big emphasis on the extra characters and weapons skins, that whole thing is a vanity play.?

The autumn delay gave Epic a new option: instead of making every gamer download the Horde Command Pack content, they could finish that DLC before the fall and put it in some of the open space on the Gears game disc. ?We felt it was a win/win, because no one is going to have to download anything huge when the DLC comes out.?

Gears of War 3 already had a lot of content, even for a full-priced game. Fergusson said reviewers have said there is as much as three games in one, what with the game?s replayable co-op campaign, its extensive co-op Horde and Beast modes and its competitive multiplayer. He doesn?t think gamers were short-changed for the $US60 even if they weren?t getting access to all the content on the disc without paying an extra $US10.

Source: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/11/epic-why-were-charging-for-gears-of-war-3-unlock-content-thats-already-on-the-disc/

So! How does this make you feel, Escapist?

Personally, I'm unhappy with it. 'We don't want to splinter the community'. Well, map packs that cost money and junk tend to do that. Since it's on the disk, everyone would have it, and they wouldn't be splintered at all. IS LOGIC.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Game developers don't want to splinter their multiplayer community into sub-communities that each have to own the exact same pieces of content to play with each other.

That's still what's going on, made even worse by the fact it's on the frigging disk but you still have to pay extra for it. Those who don't want to pay for DLC won't, no matter how you deliver it. Stupidity at it's best.

 

[Stormz]

Ugh, why does the developer of one my favourite series have to have opinions I STRONGLY disagree with. Whatever. I only play the singeplayer for the most part but this further proves to me my suspicions of where this industry is headed.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Yeah, they have a lot of stuff. I guess. But charging us extra for stuff thats already made and on the disk? Wtf. Dlc is pretty much bullshit anyway; and everybody already knows that only Bethesda makes good dlc.

 

[Darkmantle]

I see the war on used games sales continues, I wonder what the casualties are like for both sides

 

[shrekfan246]

I'm unhappy with it.

I had a huge, long-winded and unintelligible post to post here regarding Epic's absolutely ridiculous statement that Gears has "three games in one" simply because it has multi-player, but in lieu of spouting off where no one will ever read or care about what I have to say (and because typing it out already got it out of my system), I'll simply go with what I left in the quote panel up there.

 

[Atmos Duality]

He doesn't think gamers were short-changed for the $US60 even if they weren't getting access to all the content on the disc without paying an extra $US10.

That right there is pure non-logic.
"Our subjective evaluation of the value of our game means your objective complaint doesn't matter!"

Good grief, it's true. There is no such thing as a "full game" even on Day 1 anymore; it's MOST of the game, with the rest of the content held hostage until you pay the ransom.

Even if I take Day 1 DLC at face-value irregardless of its medium (whether it comes on the disc or through the internet), you still can't claim it's the "full game".

 

[Matthew Geskey]

I think they're completely missing the point of DLC. Developers are supposed to get the mechanics done, then everything necessary (I hate spelling that word) for a complete and fufilling singleplayer, then multiplayer (unless it multiplayer based. in that case switch it around), then they ship. If it does well, they get some new people and some old people make DLC to keep things fresh while the rest work on a sequel.

Although cost isn't really the issue. Not all games are created equal so not all games should be priced equally. But that's a whole different issue.

(This is not my first post, so none of the "welcome to the forums!" please. My old account ran off.)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

So, basically, this "DLC" was made before the game went gold? Epic you asshats, that's not DLC. That's what we used to refer to as "additional polish" -- you know, the extra work you put in when you're done early and you have a chance to do the stuff you didn't think you'd have time for? DLC is supposed to be something you make after the fact to extend the life of the product. Of course, maybe I'm spoiled by having grown up as a PC gamer in the days when "DLC" was the free stuff that came with every new patch to the game, and what they actually sold were "expansion packs" -- which were basically a whole new game, discounted because all (or most; minor engine tweaks weren't exactly uncommon back in the day) of the work on the engine was already done, so the only real work involved was creating new content to run in that engine.

 

[Ando85]

Though I hate this new trend of DLC, I think the on-disc thing is not much different than traditional content you download on xbox live. Whether it be on disc or not, you are still paying for something that has been already finished and just have to wait for it to be available. In my eyes it really doesn't make much of a difference.

 

[Canadish]

Oh BOY.

This industry is going in great directions ain't it!?

Spoiler

They're making more money some Countries do and they're still putting the squeeze on gamers.

They'll be getting us to install spyware as a requirement next!....wait....

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

Ick, On-Disk DLC will always sound a little shady, despite what you try to rationalize it with. It's really one of the few DLC related things I don't support.

 

[Awexsome]

Or Epic... y'know... you could take all the content you managed to create for the game before you finished it... and actually include in the game for everyone! Crazy, I know.

I'm ok with day 1 DLC type stuff that's extra but if you can fit the content on the disk and finish said content with enough time to put it on the disk before you ship it out... seems a bit underhanded to still make people pay for that on top of the retail price.

 

[walrusaurus]

I didn't buy Gears 3 and this certainly doesn't make me likely to change my mind. I understand the economics of DLC, but there's something unsavory about holding back completed content for the sole purpose of charging customers extra. There's a hazy line between value-added and exploitation. For me this crosses that line.

 

[Therumancer]

?We had begun DLC packs early enough, and with the extension to our schedule. It meant we had that stuff done before we shipped.? He was talking specifically about this first DLC pack. The others aren?t on the disc. This first one included weapons and maps that needed to be visible to all players, even those who weren?t going to pay for them.

Game developers don?t want to splinter their multiplayer community into sub-communities that each have to own the exact same pieces of content to play with each other. To get around that, they often provide new DLC to all players, ensuring that all of them can see the content. But only those who pay for it can use the DLC weapon skin or host the DLC map. Fergusson and his team knew they?d have to do something like that. ?One of the concerns was we would have to have people download compatibility packs because, with a big emphasis on the extra characters and weapons skins, that whole thing is a vanity play.?

The autumn delay gave Epic a new option: instead of making every gamer download the Horde Command Pack content, they could finish that DLC before the fall and put it in some of the open space on the Gears game disc. ?We felt it was a win/win, because no one is going to have to download anything huge when the DLC comes out.?

Gears of War 3 already had a lot of content, even for a full-priced game. Fergusson said reviewers have said there is as much as three games in one, what with the game?s replayable co-op campaign, its extensive co-op Horde and Beast modes and its competitive multiplayer. He doesn?t think gamers were short-changed for the $US60 even if they weren?t getting access to all the content on the disc without paying an extra $US10.

Source: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/11/epic-why-were-charging-for-gears-of-war-3-unlock-content-thats-already-on-the-disc/

So! How does this make you feel, Escapist?

Personally, I'm unhappy with it. 'We don't want to splinter the community'. Well, map packs that cost money and junk tend to do that. Since it's on the disk, everyone would have it, and they wouldn't be splintered at all. IS LOGIC.

It's just feeble justifications, if this stuff was under parallel development and they knew it would be ready in time to make this viable, then it's just a cash grab, it should have been part of the game to begin with. It's basically someone thrashing around to justify how everything they are trying to charge extra for everything they think they can get away with.

Also, paid reviewers, saying things they are paid to say doesn't really make much of an arguement. I mean if they consider this game to have a huge amount of content for those reasons, the most you can say is that this is pretty bloody sad because it shows the state industry greed has brought things to with their increasingly limited game content. Really though I'd be VERY surprised if any professional reviewer said anything like that without getting paid somewhere. But then again I've become so jaded when it comes to professional reviewers I don't think they say much of anything anymore that isn't somehow motivated by the bottom line and the flow of advertising dollars. The only reason why I think you had so many people calling "X-men: Destiny" (for example) a turd, is because the guys turning their substandard game out couldn't afford to pay the professional mouthes to hype it so they pretty much judged it as harshly as it deserved. If Silicon Knights and it's investors had a lot more money and resources and still produced something like this by accident, chances are you'd have seen an increase of their ad budget and a lot of reviewes saying the game wasn't without it's flaws but giving it 8s and 9s.

The point is that when a game developer feels to need to point to professional reviewers to try and justify something like this... in today's post-Gerstmann world, it's pretty pathetic.

 

[Torrasque]

I think its stupid and a side handed slap to the face of anyone that buys the game.
But the fact that 1 person can buy the DLC, and everyone who joins him can play it, is pretty sweet.
Also, "three games in one" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I have more fun playing the three different modes of Reach, than the four modes of GoW3.
And Reach has a theatre mode as well as more customizable custom game settings, so /face.

Also, lol @ buying GoW3 DLC when MW3 is coming out in 3 days.

 

[Flames66]

If it's on the disk, it ain't DLC.