More Links

RaychelSnr · 05-04-2012, 05:21 PM

Is the emerging trend of having to pay to unlock a full game or simply play through it for hours a good or bad thing?

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?

Read More - What is the Ideal Role of DLC in Sports Video Games?

ThuggyD55 · 05-04-2012, 08:57 PM

It's role is to squeeze every last drop of money it can from you.
I'm not paying for something that should be in the game already.
I have never bought DLC and I never will.

savoie2006 · 05-04-2012, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThuggyD55


	It's role is to squeeze every last drop of money it can from you. I'm not paying for something that should be in the game already. I have never bought DLC and I never will.

So you never bought maps for Call of Duty or games like that? Truth of the matter is, while it is there to make additional money, it can be a great thing. Developers don't always have the time and even resources to include all the content they would like to include in a game. It can also add to the longevity of games such as Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, ect. It blows me away how some people think that everyone else is greedy. If you ran a business, isn't that the objective, to make as much money as you can. Don't let me hear about you working overtime at your job you greedy snob

elgreazy1 · 05-04-2012, 10:31 PM

The problem with DLC is it is supplanting content that SHOULD be in these games. Sports gamers have it hard because we are asked to reinvest in a product year in and year out with minimal upgrades. This is not the developers' fault entirely; the creative teams are under a lot of pressure especially on a yearly release. The problem is things like jerseys, stadiums, etc should be in these games its that developers are pulling them out in order to make more money. There is no real added value to this DLC and it really does nothing to add to the game or upgrade/change the experience.

In a perfect world, I would prefer DLC to simply become Roster Updates and additional Mode add-ons with certain sports franchises going bi-yearly (once every other year). This could work perfectly for developers because it would allow them to save money on production costs from yearly roll-outs in terms of marketing, man hours, development costs, etc. It would help creative teams because they would be given the time to perfect and implement new features, test ai, try new modes, etc. It helps sports gamers because they don't have to invest in a new game each season.

Look at the modes games like NBA2K have added in terms of the Legends mode. What NBA 2K fanatic wouldn't purchase a DLC of new legends, game modes, and the 2k13 NBA season updated roster? Why wouldn't the Madden team want to test a feature mode in the DLC market instead of investing heavy resources with them as a full-fledged feature in a yearly release? (Vision Cone? Weapons? so many failures to speak of) Why wouldn't the Madden team want to make sure their new physics engines aren't perfected and tested before being forced to ship them out within enough development time? If games like Backbreaker can implement wholesale game changes with such a small team - see the Greathouse Patch - in one simple patch, there is no reason to believe game giants like 2k & EA couldn't do the same all while still making a large profit and taxing their staff much less.

My other suggestion would simply be a subscription to sports games. $30-$40 a year for a game you install to an HD and download patches, roster updates, etc. Seems like a win win for everyone.

elgreazy1 · 05-04-2012, 10:33 PM

On a side note: I only purchase a game like Madden once every 4 years simply because the improvements are so marginal. That's only $60 every 4 years EA gets out of me. If they were to change the game to a lower price point - say $30-$40 - with DLC patches & rollouts the company would effectively make between $120-$160 off of me in that same time span.

Again, I feel everyone wins here. The sports gamer doesn't feel like he's being shafted by a yearly release at full price and the development teams put out better products and make more money.

ThuggyD55 · 05-05-2012, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoie2006


	So you never bought maps for Call of Duty or games like that? Truth of the matter is, while it is there to make additional money, it can be a great thing. Developers don't always have the time and even resources to include all the content they would like to include in a game. It can also add to the longevity of games such as Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, ect. It blows me away how some people think that everyone else is greedy. If you ran a business, isn't that the objective, to make as much money as you can. Don't let me hear about you working overtime at your job you greedy snob

I don't care anything about being greedy. They can get as much money as they want because I know i would do the same thing.
I also know that I would put everything that needs to be in the game, in the game. I wouldn't leave people out of the game and other stuff like maps out of the game and charge people extra for it.

balcobomber25 · 05-05-2012, 01:37 PM

The problem is we are not getting what we are paying for with the core game. Tiger Woods is the prime example, I refuse to buy 2013 because I find it hilarious that I have to pay for courses that used to be included in the base game. I have no problem with companies trying to make some extra money by offering useful DLC, but to blatantly rip consumers off like EA is doing with that series should not be allowed. In any other industry this would not happen, imagine if the movie industry did this? If you want to watch American Reunion on DVD its $20 but that only includes 5 of the cast members, if you want the full cost you have to download them for $5 a piece, but down worry the base movie will just skip over their scenes if you don't buy them. It is absurd.

Icarus2k9 · 05-05-2012, 03:25 PM

I understand the financial realities of the post-Horse Armour world we live in, but it's deeply distressing when you look back at the previous generation and how games companies used to shoehorn in as much content on the disc as possible. It seems it is much easier to incrementally improve games at best so less devoted fans switch off, then bleed the "loyal customer" dry, than make a game so full and fantastic that not only will it sell millions, but people will play it all year round, rather than tease a year's worth of content so people won't trade it in.

Or option c) of course, which is convince meatheads that RPG-esque levelling is awesome now because you get a new gun, not +3 to virginity., and while you're at it you and your friends buy this map pack or you'll get kicked from lobbies.

05-04-2012, 05:21 PM	#1
RaychelSnr Executive Editor OVR: 57 Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Posts: 4,846 Blog Entries: 490	What is the Ideal Role of DLC in Sports Video Games? Is the emerging trend of having to pay to unlock a full game or simply play through it for hours a good or bad thing? 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? Read More - What is the Ideal Role of DLC in Sports Video Games?

05-04-2012, 08:57 PM	#2
ThuggyD55 Rookie OVR: 0 Join Date: Feb 2012	Re: What is Ideal the Role of DLC in Sports Video Games? It's role is to squeeze every last drop of money it can from you. I'm not paying for something that should be in the game already. I have never bought DLC and I never will.

05-04-2012, 10:31 PM	#4
elgreazy1 MVP OVR: 28 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Austin, TX Blog Entries: 8	The problem with DLC is it is supplanting content that SHOULD be in these games. Sports gamers have it hard because we are asked to reinvest in a product year in and year out with minimal upgrades. This is not the developers' fault entirely; the creative teams are under a lot of pressure especially on a yearly release. The problem is things like jerseys, stadiums, etc should be in these games its that developers are pulling them out in order to make more money. There is no real added value to this DLC and it really does nothing to add to the game or upgrade/change the experience. In a perfect world, I would prefer DLC to simply become Roster Updates and additional Mode add-ons with certain sports franchises going bi-yearly (once every other year). This could work perfectly for developers because it would allow them to save money on production costs from yearly roll-outs in terms of marketing, man hours, development costs, etc. It would help creative teams because they would be given the time to perfect and implement new features, test ai, try new modes, etc. It helps sports gamers because they don't have to invest in a new game each season. Look at the modes games like NBA2K have added in terms of the Legends mode. What NBA 2K fanatic wouldn't purchase a DLC of new legends, game modes, and the 2k13 NBA season updated roster? Why wouldn't the Madden team want to test a feature mode in the DLC market instead of investing heavy resources with them as a full-fledged feature in a yearly release? (Vision Cone? Weapons? so many failures to speak of) Why wouldn't the Madden team want to make sure their new physics engines aren't perfected and tested before being forced to ship them out within enough development time? If games like Backbreaker can implement wholesale game changes with such a small team - see the Greathouse Patch - in one simple patch, there is no reason to believe game giants like 2k & EA couldn't do the same all while still making a large profit and taxing their staff much less. My other suggestion would simply be a subscription to sports games. $30-$40 a year for a game you install to an HD and download patches, roster updates, etc. Seems like a win win for everyone. ThuggyD55 likes this.

	Why Player Ratings Change When Starting Dynasty Mode in College Football 25
	What Is Pro Yakyuu Spirits 2024/Professional Baseball Spirits 2024, and How Do You Get It?
	The House Rules Hub for Recruiting in College Football 25 Dynasty Mode

05-04-2012, 10:33 PM	#5
elgreazy1 MVP OVR: 28 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Austin, TX Blog Entries: 8	On a side note: I only purchase a game like Madden once every 4 years simply because the improvements are so marginal. That's only $60 every 4 years EA gets out of me. If they were to change the game to a lower price point - say $30-$40 - with DLC patches & rollouts the company would effectively make between $120-$160 off of me in that same time span. Again, I feel everyone wins here. The sports gamer doesn't feel like he's being shafted by a yearly release at full price and the development teams put out better products and make more money.

05-05-2012, 01:37 PM	#7
balcobomber25 Banned OVR: 0 Join Date: Aug 2011 Blog Entries: 2	The problem is we are not getting what we are paying for with the core game. Tiger Woods is the prime example, I refuse to buy 2013 because I find it hilarious that I have to pay for courses that used to be included in the base game. I have no problem with companies trying to make some extra money by offering useful DLC, but to blatantly rip consumers off like EA is doing with that series should not be allowed. In any other industry this would not happen, imagine if the movie industry did this? If you want to watch American Reunion on DVD its $20 but that only includes 5 of the cast members, if you want the full cost you have to download them for $5 a piece, but down worry the base movie will just skip over their scenes if you don't buy them. It is absurd.

05-05-2012, 03:25 PM	#8
Icarus2k9 Rookie OVR: 5 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Brynmawr Blog Entries: 2	I understand the financial realities of the post-Horse Armour world we live in, but it's deeply distressing when you look back at the previous generation and how games companies used to shoehorn in as much content on the disc as possible. It seems it is much easier to incrementally improve games at best so less devoted fans switch off, then bleed the "loyal customer" dry, than make a game so full and fantastic that not only will it sell millions, but people will play it all year round, rather than tease a year's worth of content so people won't trade it in. Or option c) of course, which is convince meatheads that RPG-esque levelling is awesome now because you get a new gun, not +3 to virginity., and while you're at it you and your friends buy this map pack or you'll get kicked from lobbies.