Why is Day-One DLC Such a Big Deal?

[3quency]

What's always been my main issue is that I feel it should really already be in the game. I mean, if it's Day One then that means it has already been developed and (presumably) playtested etcetera to a point that it can be sold. So surely it should just be part of the game itself?

I have next to no money pretty much all the time and as much as I appreciate that the games companies would like to make even more of it for themselves I can't really afford to get a load of extra crap.

So I guess I'm just resentful that they're aiming at richer customers than me when it comes down to it :L

 

[TheFPSisDead]

These days, all DLC is commonly planned for AAA titles before a game even goes into full production. Why does it bother you people so much that, after the vast majority of the game was complete, they start work on DLC that was planned out years ago, and why is it any different from DLC released post-launch? The people that worked on From Ashes were probably first involved in a different project, or on a portion of Mass Effect 3 that was already completed. You might like the neat and tidy narrative that DLC is only created if the product first proves successful, but the reality is that From Ashes is probably not the only piece of DLC that is already completed. Moreover, it takes months to globally manufacture and distribute a game, and it probably takes about as long for a bug fixing period before this to end, which requires far fewer people than the main project. I didn't even mention the amount of time it takes to port a game like this to three separate platforms! I'm no industry insider, but even I can tell that this single piece of DLC (that has no bearing on the main plot by the way) was definitely not made during crunch time. How can I tell all this? Common sense, people, use it! Yeah, a Prothean character is pretty interesting and definitely a good way to get people to buy the DLC or the Collector's Edition, but just because it has lore significance does NOT mean that the content itself is somehow intrinsic to the story that Mass Effect 3 tells, like so many people seem to believe that it is. There's a large difference between a smart business decision and removing a main story element from the $60 game.

The DLC for ME3 is integral to the plot of the game. Not to mention, the fact that it's day one means it could just as easily been included on the disk (and in this case, is on the disk). The fact that Bioware and EA are charging you for it, on top of 60 dollars, is criminal and proves that EA and Bioware are a massive ****.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

These days, all DLC is commonly planned for AAA titles before a game even goes into full production.

There's a huge problem for a start. Shouldn't the first thing for a game be "How can we make an interesting game", not "how many parts can we split this into?"

Some games simply don't require DLC. What DLC could you put into Psychonauts, Flower or Chime?

 

[babinro]

I'd actually PREFER that DLC is available day one. Put it right on the disc and lock my access to it if you want.

IF I intend to play DLC for a game at all, I'd rather not have to wait months to do so. I'd rather have it available when I'm ready for it. For most games this is within a couple weeks of it's release. I'm for more likely to pass on DLC if the developer waits a 3-12 months to release it.

Clearly I'd prefer to have this content for free as would anyone. That's not how games are made anymore. We can't expect DLC to be free whether it's Day 1 or Day 365.

DLC will only bother me if it ever becomes integral to enjoying the game experience. I've yet to see a game implement DLC in this manor though.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So you hate all DLC?

I dislike loaded questions.

The initial concept of DLC isn't itself bad. Or even original, going back to the days of QuakeSpy and Fileplanet (and if just the mere mention of those names make you feel old, yeah, me too).

Game expansion packs existed for that very purpose, when bandwidth was too limited or expensive to support actual "downloadable content". I remember jumping for joy when I first successfully downloaded Chaos Quake 2, because my 56k internet was so shitty, it would be nothing short of a miracle if it held up long enough to download a 10 MB file.

In fact, there is modern DLC I have been most happy with (Borderlands' DLC in general is a good example), but most of it does not impress me because it comes across as overpriced, relative to the rest of the game. Had I not picked it up at a massive discount, The Missing Link for DE: Human Revolution would have left me a tad pissed (not for length, but quality).

Yet every time I see a character module, I scratch my head and wonder "Why is that 10-15 dollars? When the core game has 10-12 characters for 60 dollars?" Or map packs in Modern Warfare, which only sell because the game is popular, and people have no other choice.

I NEVER saw any of that racketeering shit for UT2004. You would have been laughed out of the room if you tried. Now, it's just another surcharge. Business as usual.

Proprietary ("Walled Garden systems") systems like that drive up prices individually, but they've reached a point where they've driven up the cost for me too because others are copying their model in hopes that they will succeed; and I don't even participate in those originating markets!

So perhaps I can respond with my own loaded question:
Do you think I am just being a hater for the sake of hating on something popular? Or is there a chance that the popularity of something has had negative consequences for me?

I'd say that it depends on what game it is and what DLC it is, that makes this argument hold any water.

You'd be correct, there is some degree of subjectivity, because we are dealing in the qualitative. Is this 'DLC is worth it. Case-closed.'? No, because I'm analyzing trends here, not just condemning the entire concept of DLC.

Part of it depends on how much use you intend to get out of the DLC. For one-shot modules with low replay value, it's easy to see how I might get miffed. Things that add utility have more value, but you have to be careful to not exclude essentials.

(this is one instance where Borderlands DLC pissed me off; why was there no gun-bank in a game that prides itself on having a "bazillion guns"? Well, they wanted to sell that convenience to you later. This is the price we pay for enabling DLC, and a fairly minor offense at that.)

Even then, I wouldn't have any problems with DLC, if most publishers (not all) didn't explicitly want to forbid mods or user-made content to fill the gaps. They already have my money from the game purchase, so you can't argue how this is implicitly "wrong" without going into the useless doldrum of a topic that is THEIR GREED vs MY ENTITLEMENT.
(consoles, obviously need not apply, but I'm one of those PC Gamers so many seem to hate so much)

The market is a majority-rules system (or significant numbers, if you want to be pedantic).
Enough gamers are perfectly willing to spend 10 dollars on a skin, 3 dollars for wallpaper, 10 dollars for a character, or sometimes money on shit that is already included with the game (either download or disc; it matters not) but just needs to be "unlocked".

Publishers notice this, and have been slowly making this the standard. Why not go back to expansion packs? Well, DLC is immune to Arbitrage via the used market for one thing, but it's just flat-out more profitable than the core game. (of course, if a game fails to sell well, the DLC becomes a dead weight cost, but I'm sticking to Blockbusters here)

When Project 10 Dollar started, there was an uproar. Today, it's business as usual. Now people are actually DEFENDING the subject because they're acclimated to it. It works for them and they can't understand why ANYONE would be so anal as to hate it, let alone question it.

By economics, the new marginal cost is set higher than the old one, and I have to suffer it. So pardon me for not looking too kindly on how the decisions of others impact me negatively.

You might think DLC is a good deal, and I'll simply disagree. I've seen better deals in the past, when Publishers were actually forced to compete a little more, rather than buying out the developer market, moving everything they can onto consoles so they can stealth-hike prices with proprietary pricing and control.

I'm glad Independent games have sprung up to fill the void, because it evens out the marginal cost curve a bit and gives me alternatives I otherwise wouldn't have had.

 

[JambalayaBob]

snip

The DLC for ME3 is integral to the plot of the game. Not to mention, the fact that it's day one means it could just as easily been included on the disk (and in this case, is on the disk). The fact that Bioware and EA are charging you for it, on top of 60 dollars, is criminal and proves that EA and Bioware are a massive ****.

No, it's definitely not integral to the game's plot; it just has lore significance, not plot significance, because it features a Prothean character. There's nothing wrong with DLC when done right, and generally, BioWare does do it right. If this DLC adds a few hours of gameplay, I'd say this still falls under the "doing it right" category. In all reality, Mass Effect 3 is clearly worth the 60 bucks you pay for it, as a full and complete experience that can stand both on its own and as part of an amazing trilogy.

This next part is for everyone talking about DLC being bad:
Please stop being so entitled that you fool yourself into thinking that you deserve everything made for a game just because you made the down payment of 60 bucks. 5 dollars might have been better than 10 dollars, but I know that even if it was 5 dollars, you people would still be complaining about having to pay extra for content that is NOT a part of the core experience. Also, just as an aside, if DLC is so bad for the industry, then why did nobody complain about the 5 pieces of it for Fallout 3, or the four pieces of it for New Vegas? Are Bethesda games just immune from criticism because they have better PR than EA?

Edit: Keep in mind that this does not apply to or address everyone who said things on this thread. I haven't even yet read all the replies.