Widescreen Gaming Forum

It's not like they've even got to worry about physical distribution etc either - that's another of the 'digital distribution myths' that so irritate me. Prices haven't dropped, despite distribution costs having dropped by digital distribution. And if they're not saving money by digital distribution, then they spent a lot of years lying through their teeth about 'distribution costs'.

for this I will refer to information from brad wardell which was along this line
(don't remember exactly) (please remember it was at a point just before the launch of Dark Avatar)
"for Galactic Civilization 2 revenues, we got 50% of them from our digital distribution platform, with a tenth of the sales"

Again maybe I'm a little off with the numbers I don't remember exactly, however what is 100% sure is that the money they made on digital distribution was so much greater ....

On another day and information, stardock explained that they couldn't really drop digital distribution prices or else standard distribution channels won't put the game on the shelves!

I think we can all agree that if DLC is substantial (although individual opinions of that word vary) it's not so bad as, say, $10 for an extra car pack, or a couple of maps, or Horse Armour (Bethesda are going to go down in gaming history for that one... :lol:).

I also think we can all agree on the idea that forcing users to sign up to something that is beta for said DLC, whether free or not, is rather distasteful. I would be far less opposed to this free DAO DLC if I could just feed the code into a single site, and download an .exe that installs it all (like the DLC for Fallout 3 when it's released on DVD) rather than having to sign up to an EA account and a Bioware account...

"Bad" DLC. That's a difficult thing to describe. I completed Operation Anchorage in about two hours or so IIRC, and I utterly failed to enjoy it... frankly, it bored me rigid. I found The Pitt a bit better, but still wasn't really gripped by it. What I've played of Point Lookout was very good, I'll agree with that. Not tried Mothership Zeta yet. My issue is I've only really got two solid experiences of DLC - both from Bethesda - and only once they're released on DVD. Other DLC options have successfully put me off of even trying them due to the method of obtaining them (Mass Effect, Dragon Age) or hassle (Disgaea 3). I'm not signed up to XBox Live, so I can't comment there. I don't think that any of the Oblivion DLC is really worth it, save perhaps Knights of the Nine, but I bought the DLC because - and this is important - knowing that I don't have a part of the game makes the game feel incomplete. I suspect that a lot of people feel the same way (even if they won't admit it) or play with friends... when one gets the DLC, the others have to, or can't play with that friend any more. I wonder how many of the CoD:WaW DLC sales were due to friends who all bought the maps because one of them did?

For digital distribution pricing being lower than retail pricing... the retailers need to stop whining. High-street retailers here are constantly whining that e-tailers undercut them (in the case of Play.com, it can be by a ridiculous amount - games selling for less than half their street price on release day) and accept that if a system has a method of making games cheaper, it's a good thing for consumers. I'd still buy a DVD over a digital download (and it's fairly obvious that most people would also follow that route, if those figures from Stardock are correct) but if the DD was enough of a price drop, I'd consider it a lot more seriously.

I think the problem is that the console/XBox Live/microtransaction model has seduced all the devs/pubs. PC games used to get patches for free that added new units, extra maps, extra game modes, extra weapons, extra power-ups... usually multiplayer ones, the single player 'DLC' was usually a 'mission disc' or addon. With the advent of XBox Live and PSN and GfWL, the model is as follows: release tiny fragments of an addon for $5 so people don't notice that by the time they've finished, they've spent $100 on what is about $40 of actual addons. Much in the same way as episodic content, actually - by the time Half-Life 2 Episode 3 arrives, unless it provides something in the region of 20 hours of gameplay, the three combined episodes will have cost more than Half-Life 2, but provided less play-time.

Dragon Age is (I think) the first game I've actually got experience of where the devs actually admit they pulled content from the game that is in the DLC. Shale. They pulled Shale because the character broke the game... and yet he's in the DLC? So he can't have broken the game too badly, then...

Its almost the same sales model that kept people feeding quarters into arcade machines years ago - I await the day when we get to each boss fight in a game and it pauses and flashes up "Insert Credit Card" or "Pay 500 MS Points to Make Boss 25% easier. Pay 1000 MS Points to Make Boss 50% Easier. Pay 5000 MS Points to Make Boss Die In One Hit. (Does not adversely affect Gamerscore)."

Dragon Age is (I think) the first game I've actually got experience of where the devs actually admit they pulled content from the game that is in the DLC. Shale. They pulled Shale because the character broke the game... and yet he's in the DLC? So he can't have broken the game too badly, then...

From what I read Shale was pulled for various reasons, then when the delay hit they worked on those reasons to make him fit back into the game, but they kept it a seperate free DLC with new copies in order to prevent some piracy and used sales.

The Warden's Keep however was developed as DLC from the get-go.

The Warden's Keep however was developed as DLC from the get-go.

Which more than anything says they entered into DAO with the idea that they were going to milk you for stuff you got free in the old Bioware games - like extra storage space.

(70 Inventory slots gets full rather quickly - I have a tendency to hoard everything... however, because of the limited inventory, I've stopped checking every 'glowy bit' for loot, as I simply can't fit it all in. :()

You can buy larger backpacks in the game. I never run out of space, what are you hoarding? Lol.

Everything, mate, everything. 8)

Not found backpacks yet. But then, I do pretty much seem to be roaring through this.

Despite my dislike of the DLC situation, DAO is probably my most enjoyed PC game Since Deus Ex...

I refuse to buy any game that I have reason to suspect has micro-DLC in the works. In those cases, I wait until I'm confident that 100% of the game's content is available, and if possible, there's a package with everything.

And if the game has any time-sensitive content, like ingame pre-order bonuses, then I go insane.

Also, here's some more games with free add-ons, just off the top of my head:
Company of Heroes
Grand Theft Auto
Half-Life
Nox
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
SWAT 3
Tomb Raider

Also, I'd say that TF2 has gotten more substantial free add-ons than what L4D2 costs money for.

You can get fallout 3 (with all said DLC) for 40 bucks on amazon now! Saving you about 90 dollars from a year...

Personally I don't mind waiting to pay less... but that's just me.

Well don't support the bad DLC... I don't.

Not enough. I despise the very existence of bad DLC. Even though I don't support it, enough people do to encourage devs to continue this annoying trend, and I can easily see it getting worse.

Well don't support the bad DLC... I don't.

Not enough. I despise the very existence of bad DLC. Even though I don't support it, enough people do to encourage devs to continue this annoying trend, and I can easily see it getting worse.

Well, I don't see how avoiding good DLC helps the situation any.

I can't think of a single item I would label "good" DLC in a singleplayer game. The only time it's appealing is when they sell it all in a box, like with Oblivion and Fallout 3. And there's still that lingering doubt that the complete game really is all there.

I can't think of a single item I would label "good" DLC in a singleplayer game. The only time it's appealing is when they sell it all in a box, like with Oblivion and Fallout 3. And there's still that lingering doubt that the complete game really is all there.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to have it of course. I just don't agree... I choose to download all my games anyway for the most part, and so the only difference with DLC is that it is smaller (and for a smaller price). So the only important thing is quality... a lot of DLC has that, and thus I buy it. Simple.

It was just revealed today that the GTA4 DLC is coming to PC and I am ECSTATIC about it.

Different strokes and all that...

the only difference with DLC is that it is smaller (and for a smaller price).

When you factor in *all* the available DLC for any given game, it's still smaller than a proper expansion pack, but usually costs quite a bit more.

So the only important thing is quality... a lot of DLC has that, and thus I buy it.

A lot of DLC also, by the virtue of its existence, lessens the quality of the vanilla game.

You can go on assuming all DLC is content ripped from the game and content not worth playing Cranky, but the only person who suffers for it is yourself.

/out

Awwwww.... damn.

Ok, name TWO!

:cry:

UT3 Titan pack/patch.

[quote]

Awwwww.... damn.

Ok, name TWO!

:cry:

UT3 Titan pack/patch.

Oh wow I completely forgot about that. That was a game changer.

[quote]

Awwwww.... damn.

Ok, name TWO!

:cry:

UT3 Titan pack/patch.

That's multiplayer again, FYI.

I think my point was that it was far from a situation where PC gamers were constantly drowning in a flood of free official content for singleplayer games. There have been a half dozen examples listed here of singleplayer games with free content, some small some not, and that's fine. I still think my point is correct though, I still think this idea of tons of free content for singleplayer games in the past is a massive exaggeration.

It mostly applies to multiplayer... $10 for more maps and all that. I understand that itself is a massive change from what PC Gamers are used to... I am not arguing that point. I am only talking about the singleplayer stuff.

[quote][quote]

Awwwww.... damn.

Ok, name TWO!

:cry:

UT3 Titan pack/patch.

That's multiplayer again, FYI.

I think my point was that it was far from a situation where PC gamers were constantly drowning in a flood of free official content for singleplayer games. There have been a half dozen examples listed here of singleplayer games with free content, some small some not, and that's fine. I still think my point is correct though, I still think this idea of tons of free content for singleplayer games in the past is a massive exaggeration.

It mostly applies to multiplayer... $10 for more maps and all that. I understand that itself is a massive change from what PC Gamers are used to... I am not arguing that point. I am only talking about the singleplayer stuff.

Most crapbox DLC is multiplayer...

Stop twisting your words.

The Titan Pack is not exclusively MP. With a game like Unreal Tournament it's difficult to create a solid line between SP and MP, as they're both the same. (What Epic try to pass off as 'story' for UT is hardly worth looking at...)

Discounting MP DLC is rather silly. ;) It's still DLC. And if we do discount MP DLC (in whatever shape or form) then what are we left with on the PC? Oblivion DLC (most were appalling value (Horse Armour, Mehrune's Razor, Orrery) or came close to breaking the game (Frostcrag Spire) - only one bit was pretty good (Knights of the Nine)) Fallout 3 DLC (one, perhaps two, bits were good value) Mass Effect (one was good, one was reported quite bad) and Dragon Age: Origins (while most is 'free' - but requires signing up to two different sites! - I have yet to see any real 'value' in it) so if I go by that, DLC by the vast majority is terrible value for money. :( It becomes better when it's all bundled together, but it's still an expensive way of getting relatively little increased playtime. :(

I think I'm going to leave the DLC discussion here. I'm not quite as negative about it as Cranky (although I do agree with him for the vast majority of his opinion on this subject) so I suppose I'm in the middle somewhere when it comes to the two extremes of "OMG! Must Have Two Maps For $10!" and "All DLC Is Terrible."

...

...

Now, anyone care to talk about Dragon Age again? I'm currently stuck on the Gauntlet puzzle. Well, 'stuck' is the wrong word - it's easy, I just can't be bothered with DAO right now and that is as good an excuse as any. ;)

Most crapbox DLC is multiplayer...

Stop twisting your words.

I've said singleplayer from the begining dude, and I have said "crapbox" DLC is bad from the begining, so stop twisting MY words (again), thanks.

This entire thread frankly reads like "cranky old PC gamer fears change." There's always benefits and downsides to new ideas and industry changes and you support the stuff you agree with and reject the stuff you don't, but a lot of you just seem to hate the new ideas because they are different, not what you are used to, and that upsets you. Fear is a prime motivator for negativity and I see that on PC forums across the Internet, this being no exception.

I don't suffer from that crap, I play games because I enjoy them... I spend money on them because they are worth it, and again, because I enjoy them. I pay $60 for MW2 with a smile on my face and I paid $65 for the collector's edition of Dragon Age with a smile on my face. If DLC is good, I will buy it, if it isn't, I don't.

So you guys go play politics and wish it was still 1995, I'll be over here playing some awesome games. Thanks.

Now, anyone care to talk about Dragon Age again?

(HINT)