next »

[Valter]

I wonder why everybody keeps trying to smash DLC. Everybody here loves to talk about how computer gaming is vastly superior to console gaming, and DLC is a huge step forward to "blurring the line". Being able to download extra content gives consoles far more power to expand their games, instead of just releasing and leaving it at that. It's an online market being moved down to the console for extra convenience.

[Skofo]

Everybody here loves to talk about how computer gaming is vastly superior to console gaming, and DLC is a huge step forward to "blurring the line".

Not really. On PC's downloadable content are called "patches" and "mods", and they're usually free. I really believe that Microsoft and publishers aren't at all trying to blur any line, they're just trying to make as much money as possible.

What I think really seperates gaming PC's from consoles is free games, free development of games, free development of mods and being free to use the hardware you bought for whatever you want other than games that the consoles' respective creators allow to be published. Someone PM me when a company is arsed to make a console like that other than old-school systems and Pandora.

[Valter]

Er, you may not have noticed, but most XBox 360 games have been patched continuously by the developers, and all for free.

The "Title Update" of Halo 3, for example. They've had two Title Updates so far, both free. Rock Band is also constantly patching, and so is Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. In fact, all the games I've played on the XBox 360 have been patched at least once. You must have missed it because it happens automatically, and it's done pretty quickly. I suppose it's easy to forget (or do you not play XBox 360 games?)

The DLC stuff is all extra. They're expansion packs. WoW: Wrath of the Lich Kink is also an expansion pack, and it's also going to cost money. The Halo 3 Heroic and Legendary map packs are also expansions, and you can pay for them if you want to. Actually, scratch that. The Heroic map pack is now free of charge.

[Skofo]

Er, you may not have noticed, but most XBox 360 games have been patched continuously by the developers, and all for free.

The "Title Update" of Halo 3, for example. They've had two Title Updates so far, both free. Rock Band is also constantly patching, and so is Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. In fact, all the games I've played on the XBox 360 have been patched at least once. You must have missed it because it happens automatically, and it's done pretty quickly. I suppose it's easy to forget (or do you not play XBox 360 games?)

The DLC stuff is all extra. They're expansion packs. WoW: Wrath of the Lich Kink is also an expansion pack, and it's also going to cost money. The Halo 3 Heroic and Legendary map packs are also expansions, and you can pay for them if you want to. Actually, scratch that. The Heroic map pack is now free of charge.

Hm, I did not know that. Thanks! My brother is actually a big console gamer, but I have never noticed any patching on his 360 when I played. Probably just a coincidence. 

The points in every sentence past the first two in my earlier post still stand, though.

[Alex May]

Well, imagine for a minute you're talking directly to Mike Capps. He's just said to you that the secondary market is considered a critical point in the US market and developers are so wound up by it that they're considering some fairly draconian countermeasures - not implementing them, considering them.

I am not talking to Mike Capps.

Well, you are responding directly to something he said. Just because the people reading are not him shouldn't change that much. Anyway let's pretend that I was addressing the thread as a whole and not your good self. There's a lot of "OMG I NEVER WANT TO PAY FOR AN END BOSS RETARDED IDEA" going around, not just here but everywhere, and it needs to stop. This isn't about withholding end bosses, specifically.

So far in this topic I have been debating points like the answer to whether or not the second-hand market is a "huge" problem for Epic, viable alternatives for the draconian DRM/DLC

great

they are considering, and the morality and greed of Epic for considering this. Epic's, or at least Mike Capps' (who is an important representative of Epic, therefore his considerations reflect on the entire company) ideas have fueled my continuous rage for anti-consumerist DRM and DLC, so it's understandable that I am at least a little emotional about this.

Whoah there, they haven't said they considered anything of the sort, and it wasn't his idea - he said he was talking to another developer who said this to him. All I know is that Epic have given away free multiplayer maps to new retail buyers. I'd love to know how that is "draconian" or "anti-consumerist" beyond mild depreciation of product value that is otherwise inherent in most physical objects.

You then come barging in out of nowhere telling everyone that this has nothing to do with Epic or DLC, when it very clearly does. Do I need to quote the original post and the article it links to for you?

No; if people looked at the wider issue instead of reading it and thinking that people are going to start charging for end bosses, they need to take a step back, clear their heads, and read again, and think about it. People who are saying things like "DLC is shit!" have really not thought about what Capps said or why he said it, as the actual issue has nothing to do with DLC specifically. Since you say you have already argued about the secondary market in this thread, you should understand that.

[Eclipse]

Epic has lost all the awesome when they took the "Megagames" part of the name out.

[team_q]

This is the same shit as bitching about Episodic content. If the game was 10 bucks cheaper at retail, and the ending cost 9 or 10 bucks, I would do it, I don't finish all games.

[skaldicpoet9]

Piracy is part of what is killing retail PC games, it's not the second hand market, most second hand stores, including Gamestop, no longer take  ANY PC games for trade in. The other parts are: cost to have a good rig, and the difference between Console and PC games narrowing.

I think what is killing PC gaming is it's un-stratified nature. Consoles are successful because people want convenience. PC gaming is not convenient because most people don't want to screw around with modding out their games manually, or downloading patches or replacing video drivers to even get the game to function properly.

There are other things that can be done as a disincentive against tradeins and reselling, like offering free DLC at the point of sale for new copies...

This is probably the best way to solve the problem. Don't take something away, give the consumer something extra for buying the game new and if someone buys a used copy they will have to pay for and download that content. I think what will ultimately get people interested in DLC is if the content is high quality and is something that adds greater value to the overall game. I think why some people dislike DLC is because a lot of DLC is inconsequential to the rest of the game (i.e horse armor) and isn't really worth the value attributed to it.

[team_q]

This is probably the best way to solve the problem. Don't take something away, give the consumer something extra for buying the game new and if someone buys a used copy they will have to pay for and download that content. I think what will ultimately get people interested in DLC is if the content is high quality and is something that adds greater value to the overall game. I think why some people dislike DLC is because a lot of DLC is inconsequential to the rest of the game (i.e horse armor) and isn't really worth the value attributed to it.

The problem right now is, if the DLC is weightly, people bitch that they didn't include it in the game just so they can make more money off of it.

[skaldicpoet9]

The problem right now is, if the DLC is weightly, people bitch that they didn't include it in the game just so they can make more money off of it.

This is very true. Some people are just asshats.

[Gainsworthy]

What I like about DLC is that you can now get extra maps, missions et al months down the track, on a console. Like Mass Effect, or Halo or somesuch. Something that obviously had work go into it. Skins and weapons, not so much.

Erm, anyways, sorry to de-rail, but I was wondering. How much money does the studio get per game sold? When compared to say, the store, or the publisher, or etc. Always wondered about it.

[team_q]

I don't know but what I do know is Stardock made as much money from digital distribution then from retail, from GalCiv2, they also sold way more copies retail.

[Alex May]

What I like about DLC is that you can now get extra maps, missions et al months down the track, on a console. Like Mass Effect, or Halo or somesuch. Something that obviously had work go into it. Skins and weapons, not so much.

Erm, anyways, sorry to de-rail, but I was wondering. How much money does the studio get per game sold? When compared to say, the store, or the publisher, or etc. Always wondered about it.

Usually nothing at all below a certain number of sales. Usually the publisher gives the developer an advance on royalties for development of the game. After the game is released the publisher waits for it to break even, figuring in their own costs and probably a bit of profit, and then starts making royalty payments. I guess the profit margin is fairly large as I've never heard of any royalty payments being made to any company I worked at.

The genius of this plan for the publishers is that the developer is paying thei own money to develop what is likely to be the publisher's game - even if the developer created the IP, it is difficult to negotiate a contract with most publishers that ends up with the developer keeping the IP. So the developer pays its own money to work on a game that will belong to the publisher, and ends up back at zero cash at the end.

Whoops, I digressed! There's your answer anyway: usually only enough to fund the project itself.

[Gainsworthy]

Usually nothing at all below a certain number of sales. Usually the publisher gives the developer an advance on royalties for development of the game. After the game is released the publisher waits for it to break even, figuring in their own costs and probably a bit of profit, and then starts making royalty payments. I guess the profit margin is fairly large as I've never heard of any royalty payments being made to any company I worked at.

This really is a bastard industry, isn't it? I mean, none of the Ex-Industry people here have anything nice to say about their old companies. Fish talks about how soul destroying it was, Pixelante says that "Design School" was essentially a business class, you read articles about how a few know-it-all managers can run a perfectly good game into the ground.

And then the developers only get covered the cost of making the game? You don't even get royalties? Bloody hell. Sounds like a case of adding insult to injury. Or maybe injury to injury. Moreso, this couldn't have been really established before 20 odd years ago, I'd assume. They grow up so fast.

Anyways, sorry about the de-rail, though I guess this is kind of in-keeping with the theme.

[skaldicpoet9]

I think 2D Boy and Petri are leading the way by forsaking DRM out of respect for the honest players, acknowledging that those are the ones that it hurts.

90% Of World of Goo Installs are pirated 

I still don't know how many of those are pirated by people that would have bought the game in the first place but that percentage is just depressingly staggering.

[Valter]

This makes me sad. This is sort of why I support XBox DLC over online purchasing. There's just so much room for exploitation online. You have to go through a lot more hacking to get things off of the XBox live Marketplace.

[dmoonfire]

http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/#comments

Some of the other comments 2D Boy has on the topic is pretty interesting. They aren't really surprised about the 90% (though its an informal number) and they also said that stopping thousands of pirates only results really in one additional sale. I think they have a sane and reasonable view of things, but I'm also VERY glad they still went forward to not adding DRM, even guessing at what would happen.

[Melly]

You can't really avoid piracy anymore. It's too spreaded. The solution now is to adopt different business models.

The OTHER solution is policing/controlling the internet, though I will murder a politician that gets that passed in my country in very little time.

[skaldicpoet9]

...but I'm also VERY glad they still went forward to not adding DRM, even guessing at what would happen.

Yeah, I agree I would rather not have to deal with the DRM and I still have my doubts as to how many that pirated it would have actually bought it. I think it is a question of whether or not you want to restrict pirates from playing your game that would have had no intention of buying it at all or you let them pirate it and potentially gain exposure to a wider audience who may not feel so good about pirating a good game that is cheap and is independently made and could potentially boost sales.

[Melly]

In the end, it seems fairly obvious DRM is a waste of time and money. World of Goo was heavily pirated, but would have most probably been anyway with DRM. They would have just lost more money.

I just got my paypal account working. Time to buy some indie awesome.

In fact, I'm thinking of buying several copies of some games I like the most and distribute the to friends that aren't exactly into them.

Spread the indie love.