am i not understanding this concept well?

#1GrieverXVIIPosted 3/20/2012 10:39:12 PM
so...what is really bothering me is the fact that that I just bought this game for $60, then to find that there's already a "nemesis mode" as DLC...

this doesn't seem right to me. the fact that i already paid for a full game and yet they are restricting something already done with the release of the game costs MORE money? i wouldn't mind paying for the mode maybe a month down the road as that would tell me they've been working on it after release. but on day one paid DLC?

what am i not understanding here?
#2pimpofdoomPosted 3/21/2012 7:16:01 AM

I'm more concerned with this game not being out on PC and not listed on Steam or Origin.

#3VegantoKeensPosted 3/21/2012 9:13:59 AM
For some reason it takes two months more to make the PC version. It seems logical to me that porting the Microsoft 360 version to a Microsoft OS is many times easier than to the PS3 system. I just hope this means we get all the story DLC directly with the game.
---
GMT + 1
PSN = William-Lake SS FC = 2194 1693 8198
#4thedawgXDPosted 3/21/2012 11:07:01 AM
GrieverXVII posted...
so...what is really bothering me is the fact that that I just bought this game for $60, then to find that there's already a "nemesis mode" as DLC...

this doesn't seem right to me. the fact that i already paid for a full game and yet they are restricting something already done with the release of the game costs MORE money? i wouldn't mind paying for the mode maybe a month down the road as that would tell me they've been working on it after release. but on day one paid DLC?

what am i not understanding here?


What you're not understanding is how game development works. Take a look at this picture and let me know if things make more sense:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17eig06xukt8apng/original.png
---
Re: The Great Escape: A come-from-behind win.
"Am I the only one who thought the topic title was about pulling the Houdini on some chick?"
#5L0rdSethPosted 3/24/2012 2:58:29 PM
thedawgXD posted...
GrieverXVII posted...
so...what is really bothering me is the fact that that I just bought this game for $60, then to find that there's already a "nemesis mode" as DLC...

this doesn't seem right to me. the fact that i already paid for a full game and yet they are restricting something already done with the release of the game costs MORE money? i wouldn't mind paying for the mode maybe a month down the road as that would tell me they've been working on it after release. but on day one paid DLC?

what am i not understanding here?

What you're not understanding is how game development works. Take a look at this picture and let me know if things make more sense:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17eig06xukt8apng/original.png


It is still knickeling and diming; since day 1 DLC is planned along with the rest of the game; and it is a consequence of modern day gamers being OK with it, and expecting it; I've seen many games tossed aside by people because it "wont' have DLC, so it won't have support".

Compare what Crapcom did with SFA3 for the Psone; where it added TONS of different modes, and at least 5 "new" characters not present on the arcade version. Or the whole Tekken series pre-current consoles; it added not only CGI movies, but extra modes and characters.

Take a recent one from a small studio; River City Ransom Special for the 3DS; it features updated versions with new art for both River City Ransom and Renegade, along with multiple multiplayer modes and a revamped soundtrack. Sure, it's not a "new" game in concept, but all of the assets are.

Look at MvC3; with no DLC, it still sold at least 2 million copies. Do you mean to tell me the barebones features it had were not recouped with 2 million sales? it's one of the best selling fighters so far; that's at least 60 million dollars in revenue; is MvC3 a 60 million dollar proyect? I'm not so bothered by the ultimate version as I am with the blatant diming of "DLC" it has; Ultimate retails for 40 more or less.

also don't tell me RE5 was not profitable for Capcom without DLC; at least 5 million sold on all platforms; I don't think RE5 is a 150 million dollar project; so some of that is profit before DLC.

What is wrong is gamers asking "what is the DLC gonna be" DLC is by definition something extra that wasn't contemplated in the finished product; everybody said "oh no they would never sell incomplete games" and companies are already selling alternate endings to us.

I blame Kotick for ppulling the extra ten bucks on the price tag of expansion pack Modern Warfail 2; and then peopel for actually swalllowing it whole. So a very small optimization to the code is worth ten bucks extra? and then they sold you CoD4 maps for it! and people bought it! Before MW2 new games for this generation USED to be 50 bucks new.

We have no one to blame but ourselves as consumers.
---
Lord of Almarak. http://l0rdseth.deviantart.com
Caballero Dorado de la casa de Libra.
#6thedawgXDPosted 3/28/2012 12:27:47 PM
L0rdSeth posted...
It is still knickeling and diming; since day 1 DLC is planned along with the rest of the game.

You don't seem to get it. All of the rest is irrelevant or just missing the point.

It has nothing to do with nickel and diming and everything to do with the fact that the people working on the DLC aren't working on another game instead.

When the alpha build is sent to the publisher for extensive playtesting (which is typically 2-4 months before release), the majority of the development team doesn't stick around, they move on to other projects. And even while the game is actually being developed, the producers and team leads are typically working on planning the next two or three games.

If day 1 DLC happens, it's because the team leads and producers start planning it after they're mostly done working on the main game, and the developers start programming it after they're mostly done working on the main game, and then it's typically sent to the publishers for testing about a month before release. Because it's so small relative to the main game, they can start on it half way or even two thirds of the way through the development cycle of the main game and be done in time for release.

It's not Big Bad Evil Activision or everyone's favorite punching bag CEO Bobby Kotick's fault that developers and designers need to be paid.
---
Re: The Great Escape: A come-from-behind win.
"Am I the only one who thought the topic title was about pulling the Houdini on some chick?"
#7XenograftSoulPosted 4/1/2012 11:59:19 PM
The fact of the matter is: they don't NEED the money to stay afloat and it IS a slap in the face to the consumer.

Its never good to slap your customers (read: people your company depends on) in the face, especially in in a luxury industry (people can live with out video games) as well as a really saturated market.

Want to keep those people on board instead of laying them off? Have a bonus Day1 dlc for free and make friends with your consumers instead of pissing them off. If any gaming company honestly thinks that their gamers have a clue about the costs that go into these things then they are off their rocker. Unless anyone here wants to claim to be a CFO at a game development company then lets all remember that this whole conversation is hypothetical at best.

It is also my understanding that chunk of the costs of making games falls under "research and development" in the same way that any new programming does, which is all tax deductible in the US. I'm not a corporate tax professional but go google it and make your own conclusion.
#8teuthidahorrorPosted 4/2/2012 11:18:28 AM
thedawgXD posted...
What you're not understanding is how game development works. Take a look at this picture and let me know if things make more sense:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17eig06xukt8apng/original.png


Gawker? Heh.
Without even looking at it, let me guess: claiming 'entitlement issues', painting the publishers as poor starving artists, claiming that games would be so much worse without day 1 on-disc DLC, maybe even throwing in a disgusting little anti-consumer 'right to profit'? Does it read like some guy with an MBA wrote it?
#9NzchetPosted 4/6/2012 7:10:27 AM
Perhaps an argument about DLC being after the fact would hold water if there wasn't evidence that features are simply disabled on the disc in a lot of cases (From Ashes most recently). If it's able to be put on the disc, it shouldn't be locked. Even if it's optional, it was still finished in time to be shipped.
#10St0Ne4GePosted 4/8/2012 5:11:53 AM
thedawgXD posted...
You don't seem to get it. All of the rest is irrelevant or just missing the point.

It has nothing to do with nickel and diming and everything to do with the fact that the people working on the DLC aren't working on another game instead.


I don't agree with that logic, they are splitting the development team up initialy with the intent of creating day 1 DLC, they don't create the DLC just to keep them busy. The separate development teams are a product of the DLC plan not the other way around.

Which is all pointless anyway, a customer decides what is fair to them, if something is finished and on the disc and the customer buys that disc, then they expect everything on that disc, its like hidden charges, it erodes the trust of the customers and that isn't good business practice.