In the wild west of downloadable content, what is truly right and wrong? For about five years now, DLC has been a major reality of the games industry, and it's been especially prominent in sports gaming. A more recent development comes in form of online passes, but the motivation behind that push has a slightly different goal than straight-up DLC. It's funny how with both of these issues that often an effective marketing campaign can present either of them in a positive or negative light to various users, depending on where their priorities lie.

 

At the end of the day, though, what is truly “fair” to consumers when the prices are being set in ivory business towers back at corporate HQ? Who watches the watchmen, in other words?

 

The SSX DLC Mt. Eddie and Classic Characters sells for $8, which we called likely overpriced.

 

The merits of arguing against DLC as a concept at this point are more than fruitless. One only has to look at the numbers to see how profitable it has become. Take FIFA 12, for instance, and its Ultimate Team mode. EA expects the sales of Ultimate Team items to eclipse $100 million. EA President Frank Gibeau said that they would be “taking the key learnings ... and applying it to our entire suite of brands.” Yeah, I'd say so. To be able to cover the budget of one or two AAA games in EA's portfolio from strictly digital content off one sports game means every product will likely be outfitted with this “insurance policy” going forward

The NHL series also makes money hand-over-fist with its online offerings, from HUT gear to player boost packs. I honestly believe that the reason EA accepts this franchise's modest sales figures at this point are because of its staggering DLC profit haul. When presented with the option of taking hours and hours of time to level up an online pro, many users simply throw up their hands and use real money to speed up the process. Since everything is digital, there is no money sliding out of their wallet, making it an easier pill to swallow.

I've always had an issue calling certain realities in the games industry fair. I mean, when Rock Band was all the rage, I didn't think paying $200 for a bunch of plastic toys was fair, but many people did. They would justify the price because of the good time they had with the item. Fair enough. Just the same, though, I don't think that because a price for DLC in a sports games is generally “affordable” that it should be deemed “fair.” It often seems that there can be a herd mentality to label something one way or the other, neglecting a large segment of the audience who might find it just the opposite.

 

Newer DLC models can be a good thing IF implemented properly...if.

 

My review of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 13 brought the value proposition of newer DLC models into sharp relief. EA has almost fashioned this years Tiger Woods as something like a free-to-play game, with over half of the courses requiring either substantial time commitment by the player or an immediate payout of real money to unlock the content.

I've always found these models bothersome, as the time commitment can just be absolutely ridiculous to attain any meaningful rewards. The NHL franchise has been incredibly guilty for this, with player boosts and unlocks taking entire seasons of play to unlock. Tiger Woods ups the ante, though, by having over 50 percent of its courses behind some kind of unlock or pay wall. I'm all for 10 or 25 percent of the content to be somewhat exclusive and require effort, but more than half of the courses on the disc? Still, others might not think so.

A couple of OS users responding to my review seemed to articulate the two schools of thought on this DLC model. User “kbmnm247” is on the “regulation” side of the coin:

“I'm baffled by the submissive attitude to corporations as shown in a few posts here. At what point does the amount of $ that it costs to play the game too much? If $150 isn't too much for one year of a video game then what is?

The problem with the "don't like it, don't buy it" excuse that is given isn't really relevant since EA buys the license and eliminates competition. If I want to play a licensed golf game and a licensed NFL game, I have to buy an EA product (I think). It's just unfortunate for those who play video games as a hobby and not a lifestyle, because $150 for a one year iteration of a video game, that apparently still has bugs that were in prior versions, is laughable.”

On the free-market side of the coin, OS user “kickinggurgu” had this to say:

“It's called capitalism. I for one will likely spend about $150 total on the game and will get every dollars worth. This generation feels they should simply be given what they want for basically nothing ... EA will charge a price and consumers will either pay for it, or not pay for it. EA will then decide to lower the price or quit making the game. They have even now given you a choice.

 

Pay or have patience. Lord knows you have to have it now ... Its not fair that you should have to pay? Seriously, stop complaining and put up or shut up. Either pay for the game or do choose to keep your money. The constant whining on this is getting very old.”

 

As consumers, we must draw the line somewhere on when DLC becomes a money grab.

 

Those two opinions split the issue at its very core, I think. Some people are willing to take the glass-half-full approach, seeing the cost of DLC as fair compensation for the developer serving the hardcore needs of those who want to invest more in order to enhance their experience. Other users feel that a line may have been crossed and that certain casual and mid-level users are now having their experience compromised to service this new reality.

Switching gears, online passes are an example of the games industry generally winning the PR war to make a more subtle form of DLC palatable. Game publishers and marketers, especially on the sports game side, successfully created a perception that the used game sellers like Gamestop were hurting their bottom line and that they were the bad guy.

Eric Brown, EA's chief financial officer in 2010, said the following: "There hasn't been any significant push-back from the consumer, because I think people realize that if you're buying a physical disc and it requires an attachment to someone else's network and servers, people know bandwidth isn't free."

I think most users have accepted this reality of “Project $10” and the fact that if they buy used, they will have to make up the difference. Frankly, it seems that most sports gamers are so devoted that they'll buy on release, making online passes less of an issue for them. Unlike some of the more cavalier DLC prices, online passes seem reasonable in comparison, since a user is essentially being educated that the online connection is something that you are now considered to be paying for in a new copy of a game.

At the end of the day, I think the industry has some very serious financial realities that it has to accommodate for right now. Budgets for sports games are higher than they've ever been, and a way to recuperate those costs is through supplemental content. Then again, I can't help but think of the barrier to entry to get the full experience in a game like Tiger Woods, with online passes, special editions, DLC and possibly even a service fee, like Xbox Live. Does every sports game player in the spectrum get included in this model, or does the almighty dollar control the type of player who gets to participate?

 

 

Final Thoughts

What say you, OS community? What is fair to you when it comes to DLC? What is your personal threshold for value? Do online passes bother you, or does your habit of buying sports games on release make them irrelevant? Do you feel we're on the slippery slope with games like Tiger Woods PGA Tour 13 monetizing more than half of its content? Are hardcore content consumers pushing the rest forward with this business model, no matter the amount of kicking and screaming?