Nintendo 3DS Forums
Go Back   Nintendo 3DS Forums > Gaming > General Gaming

General Gaming Want to talk about games or game consoles besides the Nintendo 3DS? This is the perfect place for that!

Day 1 DLC - Good or Bad?
Old 04-23-2014, 02:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 945
Default Day 1 DLC - Good or Bad?

What is your stance on Day 1 DLC?

Discuss about it here.

Last edited by Gaborg; 04-28-2014 at 11:42 PM.
Old 04-23-2014, 02:25 AM
Nedcone's Avatar
Alea iacta est
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: I'm wherever you are
Posts: 1,199
Default

Depends on the use
__________________
Because you can't have a cone without a little Ned
Old 04-23-2014, 02:27 AM
Lumy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,486
Default

I can't say it's bad because extra content is usually good, but I can't say it's good either because there's usually no reason provided why it's not already in the game.

I lean towards bad
Old 04-23-2014, 02:28 AM
SRT's Avatar
SRT SRT is offline
Always looking for his package
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,523
Default

day 1 dlc is pr suicide. first couple weeks people will be plenty busy with the main game itself, they don't want more content yet, and people will feel like they've had content skimped out on them.

however, i think it's fine to develop, or even have finished, dlc prior to the game hitting shelves. people can delude themselves however much they want, but that content would not have been in the game otherwise. games are budgeted and given certain scope very early on in their development cycle. developers can't keep working on content up until release. additional content, or dlc, is budgeted separately with its own expected return from dlc sales.

sometimes things go smoothly enough and the content is finished before the game releases. hooray! could they just include it in the base game? um... maybe? depends. has the game already gone gold? has the game already been rated? are they willing to give up the expected sales on the dlc that they budgeted it in accordance to? every so often the answer is yes. it's an excellent pr move. however, i feel that a driving force for 3ds sales through the summer drought is more important for nintendo right now than doing charity.

oh i'm talking about mario golf btw

Last edited by SRT; 04-23-2014 at 02:31 AM.
Old 04-23-2014, 02:35 AM
logitech's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,614
Default

Just a step below on-disc DLC in terms of "badness."
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Old 04-23-2014, 02:35 AM
Nedcone's Avatar
Alea iacta est
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: I'm wherever you are
Posts: 1,199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pimmis View Post
I can't say it's bad because extra content is usually good, but I can't say it's good either because there's usually no reason provided why it's not already in the game.

I lean towards bad
Isn't time constraints enough?

However a more expanded answer would be for some, it's completely about the capital so content is cut, or even locked on disc, to be resold as DLC.

For others, (As I believe in the case of MG based on past DLC outings) it's merely extra content produced after game development is past the adding phase/has gone gold and is sold as a means of making more capital.

Now I would say DLC as a whole is good. But Day 1 DLC? That's bad if only for the fact that people's perceptions are skewered on how game development work, and the larger answer of people being satisfied with their purchase, playing it, then dropping it without paying and playing DLC.

I'll just say Day 1 DLC should never happen, as it is just bad PR and brings in less capital. But if it does happen, it depends on the situation.
__________________
Because you can't have a cone without a little Ned
Old 04-23-2014, 02:46 AM
Lumy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedcone View Post
Isn't time constraints enough?
Do we know it's because of time constraints? That's as much a generalization as "we're being ripped off." This is exactly why I'm not going to be convinced by these justifications - Because it's as speculative as the opposing argument that Day 1 DLC is a nickel and diming process or that the content could have easily be put in the game.

I can accept that ahead of time, these limitations are already set in stone. But most of the time, the reason why the DLC isn't already in the game is never stated.

Just release the DLC a month later or something, At least then, it'll feel like the developers made the content after completing the game.
Old 04-23-2014, 05:48 AM
ArtemisFlow's Avatar
Great Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 523
Default

Provoking more and more developers to sell their games in pieces at release which sort of makes games super overpriced to those who want everything it has to offer? No.
__________________
Life moves on like a conveyor belt
Old 04-23-2014, 12:14 PM
Zuper's Avatar
Ready For Adventure!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Convict Dumping Ground
Posts: 4,183
Default

I lean strongly towards bad. If content is completed before the game needs to ship, it should be available. I think it's jerky otherwise. Day 1 DLC to me isn't 'Extra', it's just 'Seperate'.

I have no qualms with DLC that is developed after the release of the game. If development begins just before release (meaning there would be no time to complete it and release it anyway), I don't have too much of a problem either. Just so long as the thinking behind developing the DLC is "We want to include more content for the player that wouldn't be possible in a usual timeframe." instead of "How can we get the player to pay more than he would usually?" I'm aware the sole objective of a business is money don't even start with me i swear


Basically, I don't want to feel like I'm being manipulated and also don't want the idea of DLC to influence the core development of a game. I hope Mario Golf isn't a sign of things to come. Nintendo have been pretty fair with their DLC until now.
__________________
:>

Last edited by Zuper; 04-23-2014 at 12:18 PM.
Old 04-23-2014, 08:02 PM
banjo3dsie's Avatar
No one is safe
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Everywhere and No where
Posts: 4,493
Default

I'm more towards "bad", but it really depends on the DLC itself and the use.

Like SRT said, just because it was Day 1 doesn't mean it was cut from the game.(although it can mean that as well) which is really the only time I consider DLC "bad" TBH.

I more think it is bad to have the DLC on day 1 because I haven't even playe

I'm more towards "bad", but it really depends on the DLC itself and the use.

Like SRT said, just because it was Day 1 doesn't mean it was cut from the game.(although it can mean that as well) which is really the only time I consider DLC "bad" TBH.

I more think it is bad to have the DLC on day 1 because I haven't even played the game yet. I aint buying more content yet I want to complete what I already bought in the first place!
__________________
Always buy the game first to see if you will enjoy the demo.
Old 04-24-2014, 03:12 AM
GameCollector's Avatar
Professional Box Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Missouri, USA.
Posts: 863
Default

I honestly can't vote because there's no "neutral" function.

Like others have said, it depends on the DLC itself, what it's used for, etc.

Then there's also the fact that it's more than likely optional DLC, so...yeah.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Old 04-28-2014, 06:19 PM
nintendoplayer1985's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: The Bronx (N.Y.C)
Posts: 312
Default

I cant believe this is even a question. In short: BAD!
__________________
FC: 1547-5185-7203 (Adults Please)
Playing M-Rated games doesn't make you an Adult or a hardcore gamer.
Old 04-28-2014, 07:40 PM
Cosmic Fuzz's Avatar
Master of None
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Astoria, NY
Posts: 621
Default

Day 1 DLC just sounds like things that should have been in the game to begin with. You pushed out the game and extra content on release date? Why not just push out the game with the extra content on it?

My thoughts about Day 1 DLC come from games that "sell" costumes and items that can be gained through playing the game. I have yet to see any other type of Day 1 DLC that included anything else.
__________________
Don't practice until you get it right. Practice until you can't get it wrong.
Old 04-28-2014, 08:25 PM
banjo3dsie's Avatar
No one is safe
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Everywhere and No where
Posts: 4,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterphailure View Post
You pushed out the game and extra content on release date? Why not just push out the game with the extra content on it?
Already answered in this thread by SRT

Quote:
Originally Posted by SRT View Post
developers can't keep working on content up until release. additional content, or dlc, is budgeted separately with its own expected return from dlc sales.

sometimes things go smoothly enough and the content is finished before the game releases. hooray! could they just include it in the base game? um... maybe? depends. has the game already gone gold? has the game already been rated? are they willing to give up the expected sales on the dlc that they budgeted it in accordance to?
__________________
Always buy the game first to see if you will enjoy the demo.
Old 04-28-2014, 10:12 PM
Firejonie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,816
Default

Day 1 DLC in most cases is bad imo. I feel like DLC should just be released a few months after the game if the developers have new ideas to implement. Day 1 DLC feels like you're being cut out of content if you don't buy it, and you already have enough content with the game itself. But thought can vary on DLC. So I might be more negative against skins/costume packs than new levels.

Last edited by Firejonie; 04-28-2014 at 10:15 PM.
Old 04-28-2014, 10:40 PM
MimisMan's Avatar
LoZ is Love, LoZ is Life
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Thessaloniki, Macedonia,Greece
Posts: 1,118
Default

Day-One DLC is a curse and highlights the problem of capitalism and the modern society while foreshadowing a grim future for videogames.... Thank you!
__________________
You 've met with a terrible fate, haven't you?...
Old 04-28-2014, 10:43 PM
SRT's Avatar
SRT SRT is offline
Always looking for his package
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,523
Default

you guys know you're allowed to converse in forums rather than just shouting your own thoughts with no regard for those of others

i've yet to see a compelling argument from those who claim it's objectively bad in all cases. someone refute my previous post, please.
Old 04-28-2014, 11:06 PM
MimisMan's Avatar
LoZ is Love, LoZ is Life
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Thessaloniki, Macedonia,Greece
Posts: 1,118
Default

Ok then, I'll try to...

Day-One DLC is bad mainly because it encourages developers to make their game always shorter and give you the option to buy more from DLC, as long as there is no opposition (see Titanfall).

For the time being I do not believe that this phenomenon is that accute but it is slowly evolving.
I fear that by doing nothing, one day we may reach a point where we will only be getting the game-engine and some basic functions on-disc for the full price and all of the story, side misssions and add-ons will become DLC packs.

Games are becoming shorter with few exceptions (see most FPS games, even Pikmin 3, a Nintendo game, was kinda short and had DLC). Day-One DLC packs are already fully developed at the time of the release, so why don't they put them with the game as addittional content? The answer is clear: money.
Gaming companies are craving for money now that videogaming is still a thing. Because we must not forget that like every other form of entertainment, it will reach is peak (if it hasn't already reached it) and then start dropping when new forms of entertainment come.
Therefore Gaming companies will do anything they can to squeeze out as much money as they can now! DLC and in-game-transactions are things that in my opinion are not needed. A game should be complete when it gets released, cause to be fair, 60-70 euros are a lot of money and one shouldn't ask for more later.
Day-One DLC is the absolute proof that the game is not complete when released and that companies only care about your money and not your experience, as there is no feedback for Day-One DLC and it can be ****ty.
On the other hand DLC that comes later may be able to fill holes or fix things that were needed (see Mass Effect 3 ending).

That' all, I hope you found a decent answer SRT
__________________
You 've met with a terrible fate, haven't you?...
Old 04-29-2014, 01:00 AM
banjo3dsie's Avatar
No one is safe
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Everywhere and No where
Posts: 4,493
Default

Points on mimis' post.

Spoiler!


You are going off of the assumption that all day 1 DLC were companies taking out content from the game to charge back for extra. While true in certain cases, that doesn't make it right to assume such a thing or make it right to say DLC as a whole shouldn't exist IMO.
__________________
Always buy the game first to see if you will enjoy the demo.
Old 05-16-2014, 05:26 AM
nintendoplayer1985's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: The Bronx (N.Y.C)
Posts: 312
Smile

Amen to that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MimisMan View Post
Ok then, I'll try to...

Day-One DLC is bad mainly because it encourages developers to make their game always shorter and give you the option to buy more from DLC, as long as there is no opposition (see Titanfall).

For the time being I do not believe that this phenomenon is that accute but it is slowly evolving.
I fear that by doing nothing, one day we may reach a point where we will only be getting the game-engine and some basic functions on-disc for the full price and all of the story, side misssions and add-ons will become DLC packs.

Games are becoming shorter with few exceptions (see most FPS games, even Pikmin 3, a Nintendo game, was kinda short and had DLC). Day-One DLC packs are already fully developed at the time of the release, so why don't they put them with the game as addittional content? The answer is clear: money.
Gaming companies are craving for money now that videogaming is still a thing. Because we must not forget that like every other form of entertainment, it will reach is peak (if it hasn't already reached it) and then start dropping when new forms of entertainment come.
Therefore Gaming companies will do anything they can to squeeze out as much money as they can now! DLC and in-game-transactions are things that in my opinion are not needed. A game should be complete when it gets released, cause to be fair, 60-70 euros are a lot of money and one shouldn't ask for more later.
Day-One DLC is the absolute proof that the game is not complete when released and that companies only care about your money and not your experience, as there is no feedback for Day-One DLC and it can be ****ty.
On the other hand DLC that comes later may be able to fill holes or fix things that were needed (see Mass Effect 3 ending).

That' all, I hope you found a decent answer SRT
__________________
FC: 1547-5185-7203 (Adults Please)
Playing M-Rated games doesn't make you an Adult or a hardcore gamer.
Old 05-16-2014, 08:04 AM
grahamf's Avatar
Happiness Fairy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 102
Default

I consider day 1 dlc to be a last minute patch that didn't make it to the gold master.
__________________
My friend code is: 1091 8458 0060
AC:NL Dream Address to Moxine: 4400-4101-3832
Old 05-17-2014, 03:31 AM
Huntsman06's Avatar
Cosmic Destruction
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: inside 4 walls, and a ceiling.
Posts: 748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grahamf View Post
I consider day 1 dlc to be a last minute patch that didn't make it to the gold master.
I tend to agree, but I imagine the vast majority of day 1 DLC wasn't cut out originally due to time constraints. Obviously they want money and if they were to make their game completely, then cut out a few side quests or maps from the finished product (maybe they're a bit boring and could be reworked, or they have glitch here or there but otherwise playable) and release it for an additional fee.
__________________
3DS XL FC: 3179 - 7400 - 7105
The Original Dark - Umbreon
Old 05-17-2014, 07:13 PM
SRT's Avatar
SRT SRT is offline
Always looking for his package
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,523
Default

I feel like a lot of the arguments being made are taking an awfully cynical standpoint. I can understand why, as there's been a lot of examples of bad use of DLC, but, unless I'm misinterpreting it, it seems like consensus is that content created for the purpose of being DLC prior to the release of the game is bad. Basically, that goal is to increase revenue without changing the budget. What if the goal is to increase revenue by also increasing the budget? Is that still considered bad? I think it could potentially allow for larger budgets for games that may not have had them otherwise.

Humor an example like this. I can't pretend that I know the inner workings of the dev process, but I think something like this might have happened with Fire Emblem: Awakening, a game that we know to have had DLC worked on prior to release.

Fire Emblem: Awakening is a pretty large budget game considering the series it belongs to. I mean, it was essentially a last ditch effort to bring life to the series where it was previously on the verge of ending, even having not seen localization on the most recent entry. Yet, despite that, it was allowed to become a pretty massive game with a large campaign, lots of characters, animated cutscenes, full voice acting (in several languages!), etc. Now, normally, a series on the verge of death doesn't get a budget like this. I'm proposing the possibility that the choice to add DLC to the game prior to its release was, in part, what allowed it to become such a large scale game.

As Fire Emblem is a pretty core-targeted game, it can be assumed that the average player is also likely to be the kind of person who buys DLC. So, by creating some relatively low-cost DLC, they created a safety net for themselves, in a way. Even if the game doesn't sell amazingly, they can recoup the costs, to some extent, via DLC sales. Thus, giving the game a larger budget becomes a more safe investment.

The game then went on to become the most successful in the series, likely due in part to its much-improved presentation and all the extra niceties they could add to it to make it a more attractive package, which I'm proposing might have never been there in the first place if DLC weren't in the cards. Hell, DLC sales in and of themselves earned about $4.8 million. Those are certainly the kind of numbers that would encourage seeing continued growth in the series, while before, it may not have even been allowed to continue.

Again, I'm obviously not saying I'm certain that this is how it went down. I don't think it's unlikely, though. Even if it's not the case, is creating pretty low-cost DLC prior to release, increasing projected revenue, in order to allow for an increased budget for the entire game wrong? It's still day 1 DLC created prior to release, but it supplements an already substantial game and allows it to perhaps be something greater than it could've been otherwise.

(source on the dire state of the series here, btw)

Last edited by SRT; 05-17-2014 at 07:15 PM.
Old 06-10-2014, 03:22 PM
gatygun's Avatar  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,053
Default

DLC's are a way to make the game more expensive without having to deal with the backslash of gamers that don't want to pay more.

Like SRT said. The people that really like the game will decide if the extra content is worth it for them to pay more for it. While other people will be perfectly happy with either waiting until the game gets delivered with everything packed in 6 months after launch for a reduced price or just want to go through the basic game and call it a day for cheaper.

In my view it makes a dlc valid.

It also makes free to play games valid in my opinion.

I play a lot of free to play games and i'm perfectly happy with how things cost atm. I paid about 100 euro's towards league of legends for skins, worth it in my opinion etc etc.

Still the value of games in my opinion are different. I can pay a lot of money for a mmo / rts game ( paid probably about 2000 euro's for world of warcraft alone and then i played like 4-5 more mmo's at the same time.. But a action packed game that lasts 6 hours i can't spend mentally more then 10 euro's for it maybe 15 but that's it. Let alone if the game also has dlc's that cost another 15 bucks to get it all rolling. While i would have no issue with paying 50 euro's for a expansion on world of warcraft or paid 90 euro's for planet annihilation ( or whatever it's called exactly ) which was only in a alpha state at that time.

Value of games are different in my opinion and dlc's can push me away from a game also if they really are badly done and seem like nothing else then a money grab.

For example i bought red dead redemption for 10 euro's and bought like 10-20 euro's dlc's and was perfectly happy with it, the same goes for alan wake. But most of those dlc's just pull me off entirely.

If the dlc really adds something and doesn't feel like it should have belonged in the main game, and the main game was so good that i really want more. I pay for it. Otherwise i don't.
__________________
[Sold] 3DS zelda edition: Zelda OOT 3DS
[Sold] Blue 3DS XL