United Front producer Dan Sochan has spoken out against the practice of holding back material to release separately as downloadable content, but conceded that waiting till after release to develop DLC has its downsides too.
According to certain industry figures, successful downloadable content is as much a question of promptness as quality. As former BioWare producer Christina Norman put it in a GDC Developer Rant panel this March, "there's no point in releasing DLC a year after your game comes out when most people have already sold it back to Gamestop three times. So, that means getting it out early. That means day one DLC."
However, launching straight into the first add-on pack 24 hours after the game goes to press can be rough on the teams involved. "Doing it the way we did was tough as well - basically, going into it 150 miles an hour to get this game done, getting it done and then the next day saying 'OK, let's start the DLC'. People are tired and burned out."
United Front has thrashed out a workable DLC schedule for Sleeping Dogs, published by Square Enix this August - following a stream of smaller add-ons, the game's first "proper" expansion Nightmare on North Point goes live tomorrow. "We really did our best to balance that," Sochan commented. "And Square worked with us to establish our release schedule, so that we could do some simpler packs, like character packs at the beginning, then start rolling out some meaty gameplay packs a few months later. Just so that we could, again, focus on the main version of the game, get a bit of a break, then roll into the new stuff.
He noted that the choice of a goofy undead-themed pack had helped revive the studio's flagging spirits (pun honestly not intended). "I think it was easier on the team, too, because the content is quite different. Designing hopping vampires and ghouls and glowing fists, almost doing wire-work martial arts for some of the moves, was amazing for the team. It was a lot of fun."
When do you tend to buy DLC? How long are you prepared to wait for it? Read our thoughts on Nightmare on North Point if you haven't already.
11 comments so far...
BaileyBoy on 30 Oct '12 said:
I should point out straight away that this little(or long depending how annoyed I get) rant is aimed only at Triple A titles. I love the indie gaming scene, keep it up you awesome devs! Now it gets serious.
Im not the first and certainly not the last to say that I don't like where the industry is heading. Why are developers suddenly feeling the need to whore their teams out for another couple of months working on DLC content?
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some extra content comming out for my favourite titles but to be completely honest why can't developers just make a game anymore. Some people decide whether or not they buy a game just based on what the DLC schedule looks like, I mean what class of gamer is taking over the market these days if publishers are now becoming reliant on forcing the devs to shift out the extra content. I'm sure I'm not the only one in saying I miss the old days where a dev would just make their game and be done with it, maybe a patch or two, if we were lucky a sequel.
To me, Day 1 DLC that adds actual content to the game (Not just cosmetics, that's okay) is a big no-no because it means that the game I'm about to buy isn't complete. To make a rough comparison, It's like buying access into a beta with the promise of content down the line except you have to pay more for it.
And then we get on to the issue of DLC becoming shorter and shorter but remaining the same price. This is a bad comparison but I'm going to make it anyway. The Shivering Isles DLC (or expansion pack to give it its proper name) for TES4 Oblivion was a time vampire that easily added more than 20 hours (Thats more than some full price games these days) of decent content to an already massive world. This was released on XBL Marketplace a year after the release of the game for 2000 points. Then we have Saints Row 3 and it's season pass and included content comming out over a period of about four months after release. For 1600 points you got 3 planned DLC extra bits for 1600 points. For story stuff you would reckon it'd last for a reasonable amount of time considering a full playthrough of everything the game had too offer took me about 25 hours. It took only an hours worth of playing to complete all three mission sets. This is what our beloved industry is turning into, less and less content for the same price and quite frankkly it's a joke.
I wish it weren't this way but that's where the industry is going. Anyone else as worried as me?
Rant over now, you can complain about my spelling and grammar all you want, I was a little rushed to post this.
Bezza89 on 30 Oct '12 said:
Sorry bailey, I'm posting after not reading past your name, but for me - dlc should be very much planned but not to an extent that it screws the customer over - consider map packs, an absolute waste of money really, even Battlefield which I love has stopped doing them for free so the point of them is..... nothing except to increase the monetary value of your established franchise. Woo!
Dlc should be something that either substantially adds to the game in the form of an update - consider Metros Hardcore mode - GTAs expansions, or something created purely to exercise talent - any bethesda dlc, bioware dlc (major ones, granted) offer extended play for SP which doesn't appear to be created/cut as a last minute cash grab....... or it should offer something unique compared to the main game gameplay/storywise.
CunningSmile on 30 Oct '12 said:
Hi Bailey nice first post. Stick around, you seem like our sort of forumite.
However I do disagree with you on this point. I love DLC so long as it's well done, by which I don't mean map packs and new outfits for MP. Games development these days is done in waves like a production line and what's the point in having talented developers sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next stage in the process to QA a game or the publisher to market it? Get them working on a mini-sequel so that as soon as I finish my game there is more of it to play! If that means that there is something sitting there ready to download within a few days of release then so what? If it was something developed after the main game was finished (sometimes months before release) it doesn't mean I have to buy it straight away but it's nice to have the option.
FishyGinger on 30 Oct '12 said:
I know where you're coming from bailey rae, some dlc is very much worth it, some isn't. I've not got a problem with the moajority of it myself as anything (capcoms on disc for example) I just wouldn't buy. I reckon worst case scenario is some big boys start abusing it badly, EA and Activision if you don't think they aren't already.
They will ramp up the price for less and less and as a result smaller publishers will realise this and offer more content for less money. Then the big boys will lose out and start offering better prices. Then they'll get cocky many years down the line and we'll keep getting peaks and troughs. Or the world will end when Mothra defeats Gadzooki, brother of Godzilla, and rules with an iron...wing. Japan have seen it coming for years.
CunningSmile on 30 Oct '12 said:
You off the meds again?
BaileyBoy on 30 Oct '12 said:
Thanks for the warm welcome, nice to have conflicting opinions, makes for a good world and great discussions!
The problem with the day 1 DLC situation is that the developers are working on DLC for the days leading up to release when that time could be spent on preliminary patches to make the release that extra bit better. Take Skyrim for example (biased choice but roll with me here). They decided that rather than focus on DLC for the first week or two of release they prioritised and got all the people with nothing to do to focus mostly on bug exterminating. Did Skyrim suffer as a result of not having DLC for 6 months after release. Of course it didn't, it was on track for tonnes of awards, loads of sales and by the time the DLC came out the game was a lot more stable compared to release. This shows (to other devs and publishers) that you don't need DLC in the first week or so to keep people entertained.
And then we get on to the issue that if the devs feel the need to make DLC to keep people playing their game a week after launch, maybe we should tell them to focus on making better games that people would be more likely to make a place on their shelf for?
FishyGinger on 30 Oct '12 said:
I'm trialing a new one, trixydixyvacsocosadine. Keeps me calm but side effects include anal-leakage, erectile dysfunction and death.
CunningSmile on 30 Oct '12 said:
I tried that one. It was only one of the many occasions on which I met my death, an experience which I never hesitate strongly to recommend.
msbhvn on 30 Oct '12 said:
I was on that for a few months, but the adult nappies were costing me a fortune. It was fun to stand in the middle of Morrisons and just let go, I'll miss that. I'm on Altransoprazolam now and the only side effect I've noticed is a sudden urge to violently stab everyone I meet, but I haven't acted on it that often, so I'm happy.
FishyGinger on 30 Oct '12 said:
You've watched it now haven't you
Is there a doctor in the fish?
CunningSmile on 30 Oct '12 said:
I think therefore you is.
(or possibly I think, therefore we've hijacked a comments thread)