Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm
Though wouldn't saying what is and what isn't to be a paid DLC and the existence of a "season pass" under the jurisdiction of distributing the game? No one is thinking that EA decided to make a game with mechs and humans in it...people are thinking that EA is deciding to distribute the game and its future updates in a non-desirable manner.
"We plan to do DLC to support the game. We’re going to do paid DLC. We’re also going to do free updates," he said. "We’re going to add in – there’s things that we want in the game that we didn’t get to ship in the final game, so we’ll add private matches and things like that for free. We’re going to do a season pass just because if you buy it up front, you get a deal. We’re not doing micro-transactions. So, you know, a season pass is just, buy it up front and get a better price.”
We also heard last month that there wouldn't be an Online Pass for Titanfall, which isn't hugely surprising seeing as EA has said it's abandoned the practice. The upcoming shooter also won't feature microtransactions.
If I publish your game and I'm simply acting as a publisher/distributor, then our relationship, in regards to the DLC is 100% a monetary transaction, only. My main contract is complete the moment the game launches and customers have it in their hands. There is no influence there.
You seem to have this idea that EA ruled over Titanfist with a Titanfist, when making the game -- No. This game was actually mostly finished when EA got the publishing gig and it was done STRICTLY for publishing. Which, the studio themselves, have now repeated probably as much as I have, in this thread.
EA isn't stupid, they realize they're losing serious market traction...To influence THIS game with that designer would be their end. -- I can't think of a studio that would actually ever work with EA again if they burned that bridge...
So, please remove this idea that EA has any part in this game other than distributing, from your brain. EA handles the cash and distribution, Respawn handles EVERYTHING else, including the DLC.
Give this man a star.
Originally Posted by Zero4549 Ok, let me start by saying this has nothing to do with Titanfall in particular. It looks like an interesting game. I haven't played the beta. I might buy it when it goes on sale if it gets good reviews and I see some good footage of it. In general I think EA is awful and I don't really care if you think EA has a hand in the development/sale of this game or not. Doesn't really matter anyway for the arguments below:
People keep arguing that DLCs are no different than Expansion Packs of old, and that we should not look upon DLCs with disdain when we have fond memories of games with expansions.
In concept, you guys are right.
Theoretically, a $30 expansion 1 year after release that adds 9 maps and 3 guns is no different than 3 DLCs released in consecutive 4 month intervals after release, costing $10 each, and each containing 3 maps and 1 gun.
The DLC method allows the user extra control over which parts of the game they want to buy, so if they don't like that third gun, they can save 10 bucks and skip it. They also get content more regularly, so the game can potentially "stay fresh" longer. If anything, the DLC method is better, right? After all, expansions only made sense because distributing games used to be a physical affair, and distributing 3 CDs would have cost more than one CD with 3 times as much content.
The problem is, DLCs don't break expansion content and cost into smaller chunks but retain the same content/cost ratios. Instead of breaking a $30/9 map expansion into 3 $10/3 map DLCs, many (not all, but most) developers/publishers pump out 1 gun at a time for 10 bucks a pop, and then sell 3 maps at a time for 20 bucks each. Its the same amount of content, but at 3 times the cost.
Another issue is that in the past, expansion packs would be made a year or two after release, allowing developers to see how the players adapted to the game, and were able to use that information to really target their expansion content. If your game fosters a lot of camping, adding an expansion item that specifically targets campers but is otherwise weak is a lot more interesting than just adding a new sniper that has one less shell in it's mag but does 5% more damage, or some other insignificant and uninteresting variation that is common for modern DLC content that has to be rushed out the door before anyone has a chance to really think about it.
Fragmentation is another huge issue. If a game has one big expansion pack, you either have all the content, or you have half. It is pretty easy to pick servers, play with your friends, etc. Furthermore, because of the slower content release cycle, if players are still playing a game by the time an expansion is released, they probably like the game enough to actually buy the expansion, leaving very very few people without the expansion content. With constant little DLCs, everyone has different content. It makes multiplayer a huge ugly mess. It often reduces the value of a game just as much as it add to it, making the value of the additional content completely moot. Luckily, this particular aspect isn't really an issue in single player at least.
Yet another issue is that the larger nature of expansion packs allowed for better balance and debugging. All the new content was added at once, and all possible interactions between the various bits of new content, as well as their interactions with old content, were immediately visible and could be fixed/balanced as needed. With the constant torrent of tiny DLC content we get in some games, every release breaks something, and development is immediately focused on making the next DLC rather than fixing the issues the last one caused. I love Planetside 2, but every time they release a new weapon, an old one that people may have spent money on suddenly becomes completely worthless forever after, and about a week after release, every new gun gets it's functionality changed in order to "balance" it, causing many people who bought it for a specific role to essentially lose their purchase as well.
"Day 1 DLC" and "on CD locked content" are both absolutely atrocious of course. I don't really think I need to argue those points to anyone. What I will argue is that a lot more DLCs fall into this category than some people seem to believe. Just because it wasn't available on release day, or didn't have it's content already on the CD, doesn't mean it wasn't content cut from the original game. You can bet a lot of DLC content that is released a month or two into a game's life is actually already made and ready and just waiting for that extra month. Sometimes this is a compromise in order to get good ideas into a game that the original budget or time restraints didn't allow for, but more often than not is is a way to charge customers more for the same content that could have and would have been in the original game had it not been lopped off and held ransom. IMO, "season pass" or "premium" packages feel like they at least partially fall into this category. How on earth do they know that there will be exactly x many DLCs, each with exactly y number of weapons/items/maps/game modes, released at exactly z date, if they aren't already mostly done, or at least conceptually done and so easy to code by a certain deadline that they could have reasonably been finished by the game's original release had they spent a little more on development and a little less on marketing the season pass DLCs to begin with?
All of this is made worse by the fact that with the acceptance of tiny, frequent, paid DLC, came the death of modding. Mods often added just as much if not more to a game than an expansion ever could - and for absolutely free. If you had a game you loved but wanted a little variety, you just downloaded a mod. You only bought the expansion if you really really loved the game and the expansion had amazing first party content that was better (or at least significantly better) than what you could get for free. By killing modding, DLCs have become the only way to get new content for games. A mediocre expansion didn't get purchased, but the same content in DLC form will sell, and for twice as much, because it is the only option available. It really hurts the quality of games in general, and is clearly a greedy money grab. The worst part is, you often have to buy these DLCs just to get what should be free bug fixes, often to bugs that wouldn't have even existed in a time when a newly released game was expected to stand on its own rather than simply crawl, crippled and broken, from one DLC update to the next.
Basically, in the past, a game got an expansion if proved to be really successful, and a second expansion if that first expansion really gave player's a lot of value and they were still begging for more. These days, every piece of half baked trash gets a dozen pre-order-able DLCs before they are even released, and is barely playable unless you own all of them. I'm all for additional content to a great game, but it isn't really additional
content if you are buying back the missing stolen half of a game before it is even released.
We don't do expansions anymore. Expansions are a rarity...The only current EXISTING model for an expansion is Diablo 3. MAYBE you have an argument for SC2 but, as an industry, we don't do expansions anymore, we do DLC's.
Look at Borderlands 2, Bioshock -- Every MAJOR game of the last few years has not HAD an actual expansion...And every expansion that HAS released, we could argue was literally a giant DLC.So, as an industry, moving forward -- Decide what you want, DLC's 2-3 months apart (Which is NORMAL) or an expansion a year later with 6 maps that could have gone live over that time period.
You can't have both.
Originally Posted by Sisaroth
You have said it like 10 times already but i honestly don't get your "never got as much gameplay" point. The only game that really got me hooked for more than 200 hours in the latest 3 years is Path Of Exile, a f2p with no pay2win that just got a huge patch for free.
While older games like warcraft 2 and Age of empires 2 i probably played for 500+ or even 1000+ hours. I was a lot younger back then of course which could be why i got bored much less fast but still. RTCW:ET is another game i used to play at lot, which was free with a lot maps and the community later made even more maps.
Okay so, the industry has existed for @30 years, right?
Never in the history of this industry has a game offered as much content as they currently do. That's a fact. There's no argument to be had because we're not on 16mb cartridges playing 1 map of Zelda, anymore.
Path of Exile is a FTP game that in no way/shape/form/function could have existed 10 years ago simply because of server space. -- Also, the F2P "MMO" market is COMPLETELY separate from this discussion...In fact, I'd move forward saying FPS/RTS and a few others aren't included within the 4 corners of this specific argument.
WC2, AOE2 are RTS. RTS allowed for an incredible amount of played time but, they are NOT industry norms. They are not the most popular games.
When you look at the popular games, over the past few years, content available to the end user has grown exponentially...And that's fine if you're an RTS fan but, RTS takes up maybe 4% of the market...4% of the market, is a pebble in the pond, my friend.
Originally Posted by Mailman377
You'll fall on deaf ears anyways. So there's no point in bothering. Letting the industry fix itself is really the only thing that can happen. Kind of like how multiplayer passes fixed themselves. Eventually people will get sick of this crap and spit it back out at the publishers/devs/whatevs. Then carry on milking the next thing.
Anyways I won't be getting Titanfall. For standard and principle reasons. If it ever hits 15-20$ I might consider it, but its just a consideration.
Its sad that its come down to this. Never mind the actual expansion packs that released for games. I just miss the mod scene. Now so very few games inherit it while it used to be in literally every game in some form or another. I think its funny now that a game being moddable is labeled as a selling point. Next thing you know we'll be paying for FOV sliders, .ini files, and the pleasure to rebind our keys.
I was just speaking w/2 of the guys from Irrational about this last week.
Irrational/Bioshock decided to do a DLC because in a poll they sent to their users, their users said DLC over expansion.
We as an industry have been so back and forth, developers don't know what to offer us.
DLC content is winning by a landslide because people want instant gratification. They want those 2 maps when they're released.In regards to Titanfall, you base your entire argument on a rumo
r. An unfounded and controversial rumor that apparently the DLC's are already finished -- Which, they're not because Respawn hasn't even finished the game yet...In fact, a MAJOR patch will roll out day 1...But, we'll discuss this as you put finger to keyboard.
It's sad, that in the year 2014, we, as consumers, can't decide on whether WE as a community want DLC's or expansions...Because they're arguably the same thing.
You base your ENTIRE discussion on a rumor that quite frankly, hasn't been confirmed by another source...It's simply [Forbes] and they're the word of god.
Moddable games can't be done anymore really due to legal reasons + publishers...Sure, Starcraft 2 allows customization but, the days of open modding are long past.