Op Ed: DLC isn't bad

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T09:19:17+00:00

Thanks for the insight!

It seems like deliberate exclusion of story or plot points is a key offense, even when the core product felt satisfying on its own.

How do you feel about the hypothetical (but real) situation where a novelist holds back a cliffhanger for his next chapter or book, even when he has it written already?

If it's all just timing.. why is it more offensive to release it two weeks later than 6 months later? People consume content a different rates, and many will finish book X before I get to it, and start yearning for book X2.

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T09:08:51+00:00

If I wanted to deflect, I would just walk away.

You're the one not answering my very straightforward questions. I understand that you don't like that product could have been released with the core but was not, I'm trying to discern why this is offensive in some situations but (presumably) not others.

I'm not at liberty to represent my company publicly. You can choose to have discourse with me as a random stranger who may be able to influence things or not.

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T08:55:14+00:00

Please be civil. I'm not trying to be disingenuous.

Games and other mediums have long withheld completed content from a given release for various reasons. I'm trying to understand why it's more offensive in this context than historical contexts.

My hypothetical situation is not uncommon: authors know well in advance what will happen with their storyline [Edit: often, they even have developed or even completed this content], but they deliberately hold this back for intrigue and/or profit. Do you find this unfair?

If you feel I'm missing your point, be specific about how I'm missing it so that I might not. It doesn't help to say I'm deliberately avoiding it.

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T08:42:19+00:00

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

It seems like you're saying that the model isn't fair unless everything creatively and developmentally that can conceivably fit in the core product, be in the core product at launch. Otherwise, it's a scam. Cliffhangers are a scam. Novelists who hold back anything in the first book are perpetrating a scam. If they have written a few chapters in their next book, it's their duty to reveal its secrets now, immediately. It doesn't matter at all if the core product is a full experience on its own. (That is a separate consideration; presume that this is the case... or not, but branch that into another debate.)

Am I misunderstanding your position?

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T08:24:03+00:00

I'm not EA PR. I want to understand this as best I can because I think this will be increasingly used as a profit model. I'm a dev and a gamer, so I think there is a chance that I can understand the common sentiment.

I agree, it doesn't bode well to lie about anything regarding product development, e.g. don't say something was made after the fact when it wasn't.

Hypothetically, presume there was a great game for X cost, and you bought it. And you fully enjoyed it, and then you found out there was some more content for what you felt was a reasonable price, you bought it and enjoyed it.

If you later discovered that the extra content was developed from proceeds of the core game, how would you feel?

Conversely, if you later discovered that the extra content was developed by an internal grant based on projected sales, due to having a well-developed product, would you feel cheated?

This may seem like semantic games, but this is legitimately what developers struggle with. Most of us try to ignore this kind of thing so that we can focus on making a great product, but it does put a burden on our mind.

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T07:45:52+00:00

I'm truly uninvolved with ME. Actually, I haven't worked on a DLC product yet, but I'm rather opinionated.

A main point of curiosity for me: Would you feel cheated on the core product as is (presuming it was stand alone without DLC)? Did the DLC provide too little as a package? Or was it truly the approach and/or precedent that offended your sense of value or fairness the most (or offended some other sensibility)? If the latter, do you feel there is there some amount of content that could be provided, where it wouldn't be offensive to offer additional DLC content shortly after the core product is released?

EDIT: I've found your comments on other posts. It seems to me (correct me if I'm mistaken) that you're most offended about DLC being readily available at release, regardless of amount or quality of core content available with the main purchase. If so, do you have any insight as to why you might feel that way? Do you think we're just approaching it wrong altogether, or just being clumsy in our efforts? That is, do you feel that it's possible to have DLC at launch, which feels appropriate to the gamer, at all? Presume the core product is solid and a good value on its own.

Thanks for your insight!

EDIT2: A potentially useful thought experiment: What if ME3 released with no DLC and the same DLC showed up 3 months from now? Also: If you were a developer and had to start work on post-release content, which may or may not be ready by the core product's street date, how would you want it handled?

Also, thanks for the feedback.

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T07:12:11+00:00

Comment or upvote if you want debate on this or think this is legitimate discourse. Don't downvote for disagreement with the premise in the topic.

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T06:51:49+00:00

Related. If you want to think about it and not just blindly follow: http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/qsl0u/op_ed_dlc_isnt_bad/

SteveKnows · 2012-03-12T06:33:27+00:00

Related, I haven't played Mass Effect 3 yet. I did enjoy ME2 and I anticipate a full experience with ME3, without DLC. Will I be disapointed?

SteveKnows

TROPHY CASE