Ubisoft: "Players are more open to DLC now."

#71regsantotomasPosted 7/7/2014 2:40:09 PM
UtterMoon posted...

Whoa...whoa whoa...I strongly disagree with the fighting game stuff...and it makes me shake my head a bit when people complain about Super and Ultra editions, because most of the people who actually play those games....the ones who have been playing them for years....sure as hell are not complaining. Fighting games like Street Fighter, Skull Girls, Killer Instinct and many others are being constantly worked on...a hell of a lot more than most game genres are....and a hell of a lot later during their respective lifetimes.

I don't see a problem with fighting game characters being released as DLC, and chances are those fighting game characters are not meant for the random schmoe who only plays a fighting game for a few days before going onto something else...

People just need to get something through their heads....they need to realize that a lot of people are perfectly ok with DLC, and that DLC costs money to make...and it should cost money to buy. Not every game developer can be CD Projeckt Red (as sad as that it). And the only reason that games like Killer Instinct, Mass Effect, Dragons Dogma and Battlefield get DLC is because it costs money...if devs. didn't charge then they wouldn't spend the time and ultimately the money (because it always comes back to money) making it...you would get what you get on the disc and that is all....and that is a step back....


I agree with the sentiment here.

I think people forget that during the cartridge/pre-DLC days; every new version of Street Fighter II required a full retail purchase. I for one prefer having DLC to add on to my current roster if there are simply tweaks to the game play and not a complete overhaul.

I'm also looking forward to DLC for games like Mario Kart 8 which can really benefit from new tracks.

Again, the free market will support DLC that resonates with the consumer.
---
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain
#72Yi LongPosted 7/7/2014 4:47:00 PM
regsantotomas posted...


Again, the free market will support DLC that resonates with the consumer.


How will Ubisoft or Take 10 or Capcom know that I didn't buy their $60 game on day 1, becasue it had post-launch DLC-milking announced...!?

They will just look at the DLC they put up, and see thousands of people buying it, and they'll think: This is awesome! This works!

They don't have a clue that they're missing out on money from people who stayed away from their game completely, because of that DLC-milking.

They'll only see the positive feedback: sales of DLC.
#73macmahon187Posted 7/7/2014 7:39:11 PM
SigmaLongshot posted...
LooksLikeRain posted...
I fully support DLC. It's the only reason game prices haven't gone up in ages, yet they are increasing more expensive to make.


You are increasingly becoming one of my most-revered posters on here. You actually have a level head when you comment.

If you appreciate basic arithmetic, you'll appreciate that income must defeat expenditure in order to justify the expenditure's existence. If you get a grand a month, you can't live in a two grand a month apartment. Easy.

In terms of game development it's a bit like this - people expect to pay forty-five quid for a game because that's what they've paid for the past seven years (last generation). The only problem is the expenditure has more than tripled in the field of AAA development. Let me reiterate that - tripled.

Corners are cut. Prices are raised. Content is tacked on. But the truth is simple - profits are getting very, VERY lean. Those DLC packs you hate? They're not bringing the Titanic back up, they're slowing the descent.

Personally, I calculated it, and based on what I get paid (in my low-to-middling position) to develop games, and we're looking at, like, 8,950,000 just for the studio to pay staff for a year, now.

The sheer amount of staff and man-hours it takes to produce a AAA title is astronomical now.


Well when spend 100 million on marketing I suppose the budget does triple.
---
Brought to you by GameFlux
Free GameFAQs app on Google Play!
#74regsantotomasPosted 7/7/2014 8:30:50 PM
Yi Long posted...
regsantotomas posted...


Again, the free market will support DLC that resonates with the consumer.


How will Ubisoft or Take 10 or Capcom know that I didn't buy their $60 game on day 1, becasue it had post-launch DLC-milking announced...!?

They will just look at the DLC they put up, and see thousands of people buying it, and they'll think: This is awesome! This works!

They don't have a clue that they're missing out on money from people who stayed away from their game completely, because of that DLC-milking.

They'll only see the positive feedback: sales of DLC.


Ultimately, it isn't the dollars of a few but the larger market that dictates where company investments go. If their sales for DLC fall below forecast then they will likely seek the dollars elsewhere.

While the free market doesn't always go where I want; I have found that spending my money on products or services I like results in things going mostly my way.

You may be seeking to support a paradigm that no longer exists or isn't pragmatic in a modern gaming industry.
---
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain
#75LooksLikeRainPosted 7/7/2014 9:35:47 PM(edited)
Sabram posted...
I'm open to DLC provided it actually expands on the game's content, provides enough extra hours of enjoyment to be worth the price, wasn't already included on the disc, and was at least in pre-beta when the original game went to gold status and started mass printing.

If all of those criteria are met, I love DLC. If one of them isn't I look at it a bit skeptically. If TWO of those criteria are not met, I don't even consider buying it.

Good examples of DLC:
Shivering Isles
All of Skyrim's DLC
Fallout 3 / NV DLC
Soul Calibur 4 Create a Soul DLC (Since in SC4 the different gear could affect your stats in Extra VS mode and the Tower)
Borderlands/2 DLC
Dark Souls 1 + 2 DLC
Anything labeled (properly) as an Expansion Pack such as Reaper of Souls, or Blood & Fire for Sacred 2
Soul Sacrifice additional mission DLC
Overlord Raising Hell

Things that are BAD examples of DLC:
Characters in ANY fighting game )Soul Calibur 4, Street Fighter, Killer Instinct)
Costumes on fighting games or RPGs (Soul Calibur 5, Tales of games)
Map packs (Call of Duty)
Weapon packs (Call of Duty or some RPGS)
"Time Saver" packs (Rag Doll Kung Fu as well as others)
Any DLC that adds in-game currency (Forza, GTA6, many others)
Horse Armor
Single-character DLC for an RPG that does nothing else (Disgaea, Mass Effect 3)
"Alternate" endings (Muramasa Rebirth)
Or anything that must be bought repeatedly

The absolute BEST example of DLC is also from the company with the WORST DLC practices. Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen. Released long after the original game was out, INCLUDED the original game, and was cheaper than the original was on release. Oddly enough made by Capcom, same company that many herald as the worst DLC-rip offs of all time due to Street Fighter.


I disagree with you on most of that list, but the thing that really gets me is the CoD map packs. Please tell me what's wrong with map packs.
---
Hatred outlives the hateful.
#76Yi LongPosted 7/8/2014 8:15:59 AM
regsantotomas posted...
Yi Long posted...
regsantotomas posted...


Again, the free market will support DLC that resonates with the consumer.


How will Ubisoft or Take 10 or Capcom know that I didn't buy their $60 game on day 1, becasue it had post-launch DLC-milking announced...!?

They will just look at the DLC they put up, and see thousands of people buying it, and they'll think: This is awesome! This works!

They don't have a clue that they're missing out on money from people who stayed away from their game completely, because of that DLC-milking.

They'll only see the positive feedback: sales of DLC.


Ultimately, it isn't the dollars of a few but the larger market that dictates where company investments go. If their sales for DLC fall below forecast then they will likely seek the dollars elsewhere.

While the free market doesn't always go where I want; I have found that spending my money on products or services I like results in things going mostly my way.

You may be seeking to support a paradigm that no longer exists or isn't pragmatic in a modern gaming industry.


Maybe they'll just atribute my lost sale to stiffer competition, or because I just wasn't interested in the game.

However, in many cases, I was very much interested in the game and willing to spend 50-60 bucks on it on day 1, and then they went ahead and announced DLC-milking, and I just went 'well, forget it then, I might get it later when there's a complete edition' (Forza 4-5, Arkham Origins, every Assassins Creed game, etc etc etc.

,,, and sometimes, after a year orso, when that 'complete' edition does finally come out, I might not really be interested any more, because newer and better games might have come along, or having read months of feedback on the game, it's just not really the kind of must-have we might have hoped it was...

Oh, and the free market very often screws up completely, and that's not always just the fault of the customers, but also from those releasing the product. A good example would be plasma-TVs, which by all accounts offers the superiour quality, especially for gaming and movies, and offers by far the best value-for-money, yet the customers don't do their research, and the publishers don't do enough to market their product properly, so the average Joe still has misconceptions about plasma-technology, and goes for an expensive crappy LED instead...

Yeah, the market has spoken, but the market wasn't informed, and the blame goes to both sides, because if you have a product that's scoring extremely high marks and many awards, you'd think Panasonic and Samsung would absolutely bombard potential customers with that information. They did not.
#77regsantotomasPosted 7/8/2014 9:37:25 AM
Yi Long posted...


Maybe they'll just atribute my lost sale to stiffer competition, or because I just wasn't interested in the game.

However, in many cases, I was very much interested in the game and willing to spend 50-60 bucks on it on day 1, and then they went ahead and announced DLC-milking, and I just went 'well, forget it then, I might get it later when there's a complete edition' (Forza 4-5, Arkham Origins, every Assassins Creed game, etc etc etc.

,,, and sometimes, after a year orso, when that 'complete' edition does finally come out, I might not really be interested any more, because newer and better games might have come along, or having read months of feedback on the game, it's just not really the kind of must-have we might have hoped it was...

Oh, and the free market very often screws up completely, and that's not always just the fault of the customers, but also from those releasing the product. A good example would be plasma-TVs, which by all accounts offers the superiour quality, especially for gaming and movies, and offers by far the best value-for-money, yet the customers don't do their research, and the publishers don't do enough to market their product properly, so the average Joe still has misconceptions about plasma-technology, and goes for an expensive crappy LED instead...

Yeah, the market has spoken, but the market wasn't informed, and the blame goes to both sides, because if you have a product that's scoring extremely high marks and many awards, you'd think Panasonic and Samsung would absolutely bombard potential customers with that information. They did not.


I agree with you. The free market is not the perfect system where arguably the highest quality solution always rises to the top of consumer acceptance. And yes, it is the responsibility of both the consumer to support hopefully better products and manufacturer/publisher to promote said products.

I especially agree with your point about plasma TVs. I own one of the last Panasonic plasmas produced. It has its downsides too like power consumption but overall, I would agree with you that it provides the best bang for the buck.

With regards to games, the game either meets the value proposition at the time of sale or it doesn't. If the DLC in your eyes is a requirement, then that too should be considered as part of the cost.

The great benefit of the free market system, however, despite its flaws that we have enumerated here is that it does provide an avenue for other companies to offer better alternatives. If there truly is a demand that is not being met by the current paradigm, it is an eventuality that that need will be met by someone looking to get those dollars.
---
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain
#78OpheliaAdenadePosted 7/8/2014 9:53:31 AM
I am not open to DLC. :U Ubisoft doesn't know me.

I think DLC should just be used for adding significant extra content that was developed after the game was released. Kind of like how games would get updated versions with some more stuff added, like how Silent Hill 2 got that extra story mode when it got reprinted.

It isn't right to excise content and then sell it to you in addition to the actual game. <_< That is so shady.
---
They say she's low down, but it's just a rumor I don't believe 'em.
#79universaldavePosted 7/8/2014 10:13:11 AM
As always buy the DLC you feel has value to you and ignore all the rest. No need to wish Companies into the cornfield.
---
Fanboys (of all stripes) are sad, pathetic, souls. You know who you are.
#80SabramPosted 7/9/2014 4:52:59 AM
LooksLikeRain posted...
Sabram posted...
I'm open to DLC provided it actually expands on the game's content, provides enough extra hours of enjoyment to be worth the price, wasn't already included on the disc, and was at least in pre-beta when the original game went to gold status and started mass printing.

If all of those criteria are met, I love DLC. If one of them isn't I look at it a bit skeptically. If TWO of those criteria are not met, I don't even consider buying it.

Good examples of DLC:
Shivering Isles
All of Skyrim's DLC
Fallout 3 / NV DLC
Soul Calibur 4 Create a Soul DLC (Since in SC4 the different gear could affect your stats in Extra VS mode and the Tower)
Borderlands/2 DLC
Dark Souls 1 + 2 DLC
Anything labeled (properly) as an Expansion Pack such as Reaper of Souls, or Blood & Fire for Sacred 2
Soul Sacrifice additional mission DLC
Overlord Raising Hell

Things that are BAD examples of DLC:
Characters in ANY fighting game )Soul Calibur 4, Street Fighter, Killer Instinct)
Costumes on fighting games or RPGs (Soul Calibur 5, Tales of games)
Map packs (Call of Duty)
Weapon packs (Call of Duty or some RPGS)
"Time Saver" packs (Rag Doll Kung Fu as well as others)
Any DLC that adds in-game currency (Forza, GTA6, many others)
Horse Armor
Single-character DLC for an RPG that does nothing else (Disgaea, Mass Effect 3)
"Alternate" endings (Muramasa Rebirth)
Or anything that must be bought repeatedly

The absolute BEST example of DLC is also from the company with the WORST DLC practices. Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen. Released long after the original game was out, INCLUDED the original game, and was cheaper than the original was on release. Oddly enough made by Capcom, same company that many herald as the worst DLC-rip offs of all time due to Street Fighter.


I disagree with you on most of that list, but the thing that really gets me is the CoD map packs. Please tell me what's wrong with map packs.


They're priced too high. If it were $5 for a map pack, rather than $5 per map, it wouldnt be as bad.

Also, to the person who said DLC characters in fighting games isn't a bad thing? I played fighting games ever since they existed. It's much more satisfying to unlock a character from within the game than buying it. Not only does it give you a sense of accomplishment, but it also doesnt put any pressure on your wallet.

Even games like Soul Calibur 4/5 were doing in-game unlocks for characters. The fighting game I played the most of was either Tekken 3 or Soul Calibur 3, both of which had a lot of unlockable characters.

I might also clarify my point a bit. Characters that are completely new to the game you bought are fine, so long as they're not priced too high. Characters already on the disc where all you buy is an unlocking code? Not fine (looking at you Yoda/Darth Vader on SC4)
---
Dark Souls 2 + Dragon's Crown crossover game needs to happen.
PSN: Sabram - NNID: Sabram - Gamertag: Sabram