Xbox 360 And DLC

[Soviet Heavy]

So, we've all probably read this article
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112562-Microsoft-Doesnt-Want-Sonys-Sloppy-Seconds

which handily explains why Microsoft is so stingy about multiplatform games being released simultaneously.

But this got me wondering if this is the reason behind DLC delays for other consoles. Stuff like the New Vegas DLCs, or the huge delay with Bioshock 2's DLC for the PC. Could it be because they'd just throw a tantrum and refuse the content altogether? What do you guys think is the reason?

 

[yuval152]

that microsoft is being greedy,as usual.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's quite possible that this is a case of reason for delays. However this is an industry PLAGUED with delays, so I wouldn't say it's an immediate answer.

 

[GonzoGamer]

So, we've all probably read this article
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112562-Microsoft-Doesnt-Want-Sonys-Sloppy-Seconds

which handily explains why Microsoft is so stingy about multiplatform games being released simultaneously.

But this got me wondering if this is the reason behind DLC delays for other consoles. Stuff like the New Vegas DLCs, or the huge delay with Bioshock 2's DLC for the PC. Could it be because they'd just throw a tantrum and refuse the content altogether? What do you guys think is the reason?

Could be. But for big titles like Fallout or GTA, I think the publishers should call their bluff. There's no way they would refuse dlc for really big titles.

Ironically, all this BS (as well as used game punishment and drm) is making games a lot less fun and all these schemes have only caused me to purchase far fewer games & devises than I used to.

If the climate was more like last gen (when publishers, platform developers, and retailers weren't completely shitting all over consumers) I would probably already have a 360, 3ds, and would be planning on getting the psp2. I would also probably be getting a new game at least once a month. But at this point, I've only bought one game this year and I doubt I'll even get a console when the next gen hits.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Could be. But for big titles like Fallout or GTA, I think the publishers should call their bluff. There's no way they would refuse dlc for really big titles.

Skyrim's DLC is going to be X360 exclusive for the first month it's out.

Maybe it's just me, but it kind of sounds like Microsoft threw themselves a little tantrum to get that deal. Can't imagine any other reason for Bethesda to do that.

 

[Scizophrenic Llama]

Could be. But for big titles like Fallout or GTA, I think the publishers should call their bluff. There's no way they would refuse dlc for really big titles.

Skyrim's DLC is going to be X360 exclusive for the first month it's out.

Maybe it's just me, but it kind of sounds like Microsoft threw themselves a little tantrum to get that deal. Can't imagine any other reason for Bethesda to do that.

No, they threw them a pile of money. Live is able to flaunt it's money because people pay for it. I don't see a reason for anybody to complain, they do have to pay $60 or so a year to get this special treatment.

Given Bethesda's track record with putting DLC on the 360 first it isn't surprising.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

On the one hand, pressuring publishers to put things out on the 360 at the same time as other consoles is obviously advantageous to people with a 360 when the pressure works. In that sense, this is absolutely a good decision on Microsoft's part because it helps their customers.

On the other hand, it's manipulative and hurts Microsoft's customers when publishers don't or can't release things simultaneously. This is especially ugly when a small game that couldn't have hoped to release simultaneously does unexpectedly well and then can't release a port. And whenever this policy prevents a release, that's a loss of income for Microsoft (though I imagine they've figured that this loss is far less than the reward reaped by the policy - otherwise they wouldn't be adhering to it).

I'd be more interested in knowing how often they exercise this provision. It says that they can choose to prevent a release, not that it's standing policy to do so. So is this just an ace in the hole to pull out for additional leverage on special occasions or is there a blanket refusal regarding these games with only a handful of special exceptions?

 

[GonzoGamer]

Could be. But for big titles like Fallout or GTA, I think the publishers should call their bluff. There's no way they would refuse dlc for really big titles.

Skyrim's DLC is going to be X360 exclusive for the first month it's out.

Maybe it's just me, but it kind of sounds like Microsoft threw themselves a little tantrum to get that deal. Can't imagine any other reason for Bethesda to do that.

Bethesda should've called their bluff. There's no way MS would've turned away dlc for one of the most anticipated games of the year.
Money might've changed hands too: like with the gta dlc.

What really annoys me about that is that MS doesn't extend that exclusivity to the PC market. By now I always expect Bethesda to treat the ps3 as an afterthought but the PC? I guess the PC market can't be talked into paying them a monthly fee so they would probably prefer all those pc gamers get 360s instead. Just another reason to hold off for GOTY.

What pricks.

 

[Epic Louie]

Greed is a terrible thing.