Visceral Defends Dead Space 3 DLC

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Visceral Defends Dead Space 3 DLC

image

Dead Space 3's Awakened DLC didn't go into production until after the main game was finished insists producer, John Calhoun.

By this point, I probably don't need to explain how the song-and-dance that accompanies every major DLC release goes, but here's a quick refresher anyway. Company releases game. Shortly afterwards, company releases DLC. Gamers take note of suspiciously short time frame between those two dates and accuse company of cutting content from the game to release as DLC. Company vehemently denies those claims. Gamers remain unconvinced. Rinse. Repeat.

This time around it's Visceral Games' John Calhoun explaining that work on the recently announced Awakened DLC campaign for Dead Space 3 didn't start until the main game was finished.

"Dead Space 3 is finished months before it's actually sold, 'cause you have to go through manufacturing, certification, and all that stuff," he told Destructoid. "So in that time we a have team with nothing to do."

"It's definitely not the case where we take a level, and just decide we're not going to include it in the main game. This was not even part of Dead Space 3; it was developed by a smaller set of our team that were run with a different producer, and all that stuff. You're looking at something that was wholly created as a standalone product."

Of course, short of revealing timetable or budgetary documents, there's no way for Calhoun to prove Awakened isn't the gaming equivalent of Soylent Green. Gamers will either take him at his word, or assume he's part of the industry-wide conspiracy to break down games into expensive, bite-size chunks.

Rinse. Repeat.

Dead Space 3: Awakened will hit 360, PS3 and PC on March 12th.

Source: Destructoid

Permalink

I believe him, and I'm fine with even Day-1 DLC as long as it get's started after shipping, I don't see what's wrong with that. I for one greatly enjoyed DS3 with all it's shortcomings and I will be buying this at least eventually.

Grey Carter:
Company releases game. Shortly afterwards, company releases DLC. Gamers take note of suspiciously short time frame between those two dates and accuse company of cutting content from the game to release as DLC. Company vehemently denies those claims. Gamers remain unconvinced. Rinse. Repeat.

Oh you.

Come on people, this is the exact same thing as ME3. How game development works shouldn't be a surprise at this point.

I still just miss the days where you bought a game, and you got the whole game. The end.

Also to add to this: after the fiasco with Aliens: Colonial Marines, who's to say that they aren't outright lying to us about this? How about this gaming industry, if you want us to quit thinking you're all a bunch of filthy liars, show us some proof instead of just expecting us to take your word on it. You know, just a suggestion, seeing as you people haven't exactly fostered a lot of trust in us, especially in the past couple years.

Company releases game. Shortly afterwards, company releases DLC. Gamers take note of suspiciously short time frame between those two dates and accuse company of cutting content from the game to release as DLC. Company vehemently denies those claims. Gamers remain unconvinced. Rinse. Repeat.

This happens so often nowadays i seriously question whether any mention of it is worth calling "news" anymore. As filler, maybe, but not if theres bigger fish.

I'm still uncertain if it precludes the possibility that game development at some point plans to have DLC included before it's finished (with the assumption that certain features are "nonessential" and delegated to the DLC pile), and then slated to be developed at the "free" time post-main development, instead of it being added on as a possibility, but not designed to occur in such a way that it suspiciously meshes with the game.

It's very easy to toy with the definition of "main game".

AC10:
I still just miss the days where you bought a game, and you got the whole game. The end.

Yeah, those were the days.

Ed130:

AC10:
I still just miss the days where you bought a game, and you got the whole game. The end.

Yeah, those were the days.

are we having some sort of EA reference joke here or is this just coincidence

You know what would be refreshing, if the developers just kept their mouths shut and observed the market forces. I know people complain, but sometimes, you can't please people.

weirdguy:

Ed130:

AC10:
I still just miss the days where you bought a game, and you got the whole game. The end.

Yeah, those were the days.

are we having some sort of EA reference joke here or is this just coincidence

AC10 may be referring to some EA joke but I was simply reminiscing about the past.

Here's the thing. It takes about 3 months to do the certification. You don't plan, flesh out the story, make art assets, code, do music/sfx, and debug in that little of time. I simply can't believe that some of the process isn't done prior to the certification process. Granted you can reuse some of the stuff from the main game for the DLC, but people get kinda torked being asked to shell out 10-15 bucks if you just throw something together out of completely existing assets.

I don't mind day 1 DLC -if- it doesn't feel like it should have belonged in the main game. Something like Zaheed from ME2 . You didn't really get to socialize with him like the rest of stock characters. He's just a nice extra. On the other hand, you have ME3's From Ashes. It had a recruitable character that you could socialize with like your others, and the character itself was a VERY VERY big part of the lore. Not to mention that there art assets that belong to the DLC ON THE DISK. Meaning it HAD to have been worked on before it went to certification. Oh, but they swore up and down that they didn't work on it until it was in certification.

You know what. Fine. You work on day one DLC prior to when the game's shipped off for certification, whether it's something you sliced off the main game for it (although this decision would piss me off), or something you came up separately. Just don't BS me and say you weren't.

weirdguy:
I'm still uncertain if it precludes the possibility that game development at some point plans to have DLC included before it's finished (with the assumption that certain features are "nonessential" and delegated to the DLC pile), and then slated to be developed at the "free" time post-main development, instead of it being added on as a possibility, but not designed to occur in such a way that it suspiciously meshes with the game.

It's very easy to toy with the definition of "main game".

And this is why I prefer the types of DLC that are clearly created in response to players' reactions to the main game. That way you can truly know you haven't been ripped off in any way.

Or you could just be smart and wait a month or two so it at least LOOKs like you're telling the truth.

weirdguy:

Ed130:

AC10:
I still just miss the days where you bought a game, and you got the whole game. The end.

Yeah, those were the days.

are we having some sort of EA reference joke here or is this just coincidence

Nope, believe it or not, that used to actually happen

So yeah, the main issue is the fact that they're still planning this DLC alongside the main game while it's in production, and while there's nothing wrong PER SE with that, it still means that part of the game is being designed as monetization (overpriced too, if their claims of using the last few months over the rest of the development time compared to the price ratio of initial game to DLC), and to claim otherwise is foolish.

This is more apparent with "season passes" because in order for them to come up with a pricing model, they would have to know what their budget for the DLC is, and going by how much detail a publisher usually wants when they're being anal retentive about money to the point where you can get a game cancelled based on a bad impression to the executives, all of that was premeditated to a T.

Sean Strife:
Also to add to this: after the fiasco with Aliens: Colonial Marines, who's to say that they aren't outright lying to us about this? How about this gaming industry, if you want us to quit thinking you're all a bunch of filthy liars, show us some proof instead of just expecting us to take your word on it. You know, just a suggestion, seeing as you people haven't exactly fostered a lot of trust in us, especially in the past couple years.

What are you talking about?
First of all Visceral had nothing to do with Colonial Marines and to somehow staple that nonsense to every developer is ludicrous.
And what proof would satisfy you? The development cycle of games is well known, if you want something like a personalized tour of each company and daily reports on what they're doing just to convince you, don't be surprised when it doesn't happen.

I'm just happy that this DLC is taking place after the ending and is still starring the main characters. Now, I liked Dead Space 2: Severed just fine, but the ending to Dead Space 3 left me on a bit of a down note. I wanted more closure, and without spoiling anything, I wanted to know what was going to happen next and what happened to everyone. So I, for one, am very happy about this.
Glad to see a release date was finally nailed down. Next Tuesday huh? Guess I need to go buy a PS card.

DVS BSTrD:
Or you could just be smart and wait a month or two so it at least LOOKs like you're telling the truth.

Yeah, but they don't want to give up the extra sales from that early impulse point. In other words, they want the cash but don't want their feelings hurt.

After the game is complete, it has to be sent to verification(If it launches on consoles, and I suppose Steam), at this point no changes can be made to the game, and in addition, near completion of the game, the art team's got practically nothing to do. Why not spend the time from then until launch on making DLC? And to all of you reminiscing about when you got the whole game when you bought it, what about expansion packs? DLC isn't anything but a modern take on expansion packs, sure some of them are practically microscopic in scale, just some custom armor or weapons, but then you have stuff like Dragonborn or Undead Nightmare for RDR. Personally I find the whole "Back in the day, you got the whole game when you bought it" argument to be utter bullshit. Games had DLC back then as well, you just had to buy it in a brick and mortar store instead of download it from the internet.

Hell, some of the older SimCity games had "expansions" that were practically nothing more than texture packs!

Considering how long it takes to make the game that's on the disc (assuming that's all that's on the disc), I can't imagine that a DLC of this scale can be made in 3 months. I'm not even so sure about the "cut off small team working on it while we were making the game" thing. Leading up to gold, it's almost always "crunch time", and everyone is pulling together working ridiculous hours to get it ready for approval. And even if "the art team has nothing to do" in those 3 months, you need more than an art team to code it, program the AI, do the voice acting, scripting, and music/sound effects.

I know that I sound really cynical and skeptical...there's just been a whole lot of left hooks I've taken since the consoles got broadband connections. I'm also still very pissed about being stupid enough to buy the Gears of War 3 season pass, and that damned "horde command" thing being the first release. That wasn't even DLC. I downloaded like fucking 60kb to make horde mode what it was probably supposed to be out of the box. Okay, that's out of my system now. That also had nothing to do with EA.

Edit: From a more sensible standpoint, I realize that this is just the lines being blurred regarding what the "main game" is. I'm sure that the publishers are in a situation with rising budgets (some of which is their bloated marketing and their fault) and would like to price games above $60/your local equivalent. DLC, DLC (Disc-locked-content), microtransactions, and avatar clothing are ways to offset the budgets without raising the MSRP. I bet that if games launched at $69 or $75 sales would drop a lot, and they know that.

chstens:
After the game is complete, it has to be sent to verification(If it launches on consoles, and I suppose Steam), at this point no changes can be made to the game, and in addition, near completion of the game, the art team's got practically nothing to do. Why not spend the time from then until launch on making DLC? And to all of you reminiscing about when you got the whole game when you bought it, what about expansion packs? DLC isn't anything but a modern take on expansion packs, sure some of them are practically microscopic in scale, just some custom armor or weapons, but then you have stuff like Dragonborn or Undead Nightmare for RDR. Personally I find the whole "Back in the day, you got the whole game when you bought it" argument to be utter bullshit. Games had DLC back then as well, you just had to buy it in a brick and mortar store instead of download it from the internet.

Hell, some of the older SimCity games had "expansions" that were practically nothing more than texture packs!

People talk about the "old days". I grew UP in the old days, and DLC was just called "expansion packs" back then. I was there when you got expansion packs to games like Diablo and StarCraft and Baldur's Gate and Elder Scrolls, only because the internet wasn't so hip and prominent, you bought more, at a reduced price, at a retail store instead, but you needed the original game to play the content.

I've seen how games are made. I 100% believe them when they say the DLC was made after the main game, because games ARE made with a variety of talent doing different things at different times, and when the game is nearly done and all you have left is debugging and certification, it makes more sense to get started on something new rather than have all your talent sitting around for months doing nothing. I keeps them busy, keeps them employed and making money, keeps the content for the game coming (and coming sooner), and, ideally, everyone should be happy.

I'm with everyone else, that I hate on-disc "DLC" (Capcom is the worst), but not every company is like that. Stuff like the Arkham City Catwoman DLC should have never been optional, IMO, because it's almost integral to the entire game and interwoven with the core game, just as ME3's Prothean DLC has a character who contributes so much to the core game, more so than the other characters that join up, that it's pretty stupid (or greedy) to delegate him to DLC.

But post-story, post-launch, post-game content? I'm fine with that. I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm even going to say I don't buy the "buy the real ending" nonsense because DS3 had a complete ending that wrapped up its core narrative, while this DLC is tying up some lose endings and planting seeds for new story threads, which is what a good expansion DOES (see also: Dragon Age Origins: Awakening, StarCraft: Brood Wars, WarCraft: The Frozen Throne, Half-Life: Episode 2, etc.)

I trust him. I still hate the microtransactions (even if I never used them or noticed them) and the co-op (mainly because I can't 100% the game's collectables or achievements without doing it), but this DLC issue isn't one of my gripes. Credit where credit is due. Now let's see if the DLC is actually any good.

DVS BSTrD:
Or you could just be smart and wait a month or two so it at least LOOKs like you're telling the truth.

weirdguy:

Ed130:

Yeah, those were the days.

are we having some sort of EA reference joke here or is this just coincidence

Nope, believe it or not, that used to actually happen

I just miss the days when the game you were playing didn't become a paperweight the instant you didn't have an internet connection.

DrunkOnEstus:
Considering how long it takes to make the game that's on the disc (assuming that's all that's on the disc), I can't imagine that a DLC of this scale can be made in 3 months. I'm not even so sure about the "cut off small team working on it while we were making the game" thing. Leading up to gold, it's almost always "crunch time", and everyone is pulling together working ridiculous hours to get it ready for approval. And even if "the art team has nothing to do" in those 3 months, you need more than an art team to code it, program the AI, do the voice acting, scripting, and music/sound effects.

I know that I sound really cynical and skeptical...there's just been a whole lot of left hooks I've taken since the consoles got broadband connections. I'm also still very pissed about being stupid enough to buy the Gears of War 3 season pass, and that damned "horde command" thing being the first release. That wasn't even DLC. I downloaded like fucking 60kb to make horde mode what it was probably supposed to be out of the box. Okay, that's out of my system now. That also had nothing to do with EA.

I believe them, but that's also because I've seen their handiwork. Some companies are just more efficient than others. It's the reason we've seen 5 main entry Assassin's Creed games in the past 6 years while it took 13 years to release a clunker like Duke Nukem Forever (and it's getting to be nearly 7 years now since Final Fantasy Versus 13 was revealed). Some companies have focus, a vision, and a production pipeline that works well, along with the skill and communication necessary to ensure things go quickly and smoothly. Some companies, many companies, don't.

I very vividly recall reading up news on all things Mass Effect 3 before the game came out, and they admitted they were in a bit of panic about the ending (before things got REALLY crazy after people saw it). They didn't have a final script, and they were only recording the dialogue a couple of months before the release date, given them just a few months to finish all the animation, lip syncing, lighting, editing, etc. But they DID get it done (even if people didn't LIKE what it was). Entire game designers have challenges of trying to program complete games in 24 hours, while a skilled artist can take assets created in the past and, with minimal effort, create something that seems entirely new.

Looking at the video for this DLC... there's not much NEW. You're revisiting an old location that's been redecorated with already existing assets (candles, limbs, etc.). Some of it is new... but not much. The scenario and story is the primarily different thing, and that's the easiest and quickest to create in advance, record, and prep for animation. The gameplay, however, is all there, and there is a minimal need for any major programmers or debuggers that early on.

The timeline works out for me because it sounds like they had a vision for it and the team works well together, with a proven track record of making polished games in a short turn-over period.

Ukomba:
Come on people, this is the exact same thing as ME3. How game development works shouldn't be a surprise at this point.

Yeah, I mean come on! They have to spend that time between end of development and release to spruce up all that content they withheld and repackage it as DLC.

I mean what are you all, stupid? You expect to pay full price for a game and get the whole game?

YOU. ARE. THICK.

And entitled.

Trishbot:
Snip

In that regard, I totally agree with you. Visceral are masters of game design, honestly. The HUD being seamlessly integrated into the suit, the hidden loading times, tight mechanics...they're just masters of their craft. I can totally believe that in their offices, everyone is on the same page and is damned good at what they do. Visceral specifically probably never ends up a couple months before gold wondering how the hell to finish things with none of it planned beforehand.

I have a somewhat unrelated question for you, for discussion's sake. What do you think about DLC that's developed by an entirely different company, like the Borderlands 2 Season Pass? I kind of see those DLC as small games that really ought to be XBLA games or something, that get better sales due to an expectation that they match the quality of the "main" product. I find it somewhat deceptive. People drop an extra 30 bucks on their purchase expecting even more of what they love, when the "extra" content isn't really at all an extension of the experience they enjoyed on the disc.

AC10:
I still just miss the days where you bought a game, and you got the whole game. The end.

I kind of prefer how its working these days. It used to be they would just save it all up and release it as an expansion or a sequel but now we get it in chunks over the course of a year or so. It keeps games refreshing and helps a lot with replayability. Hell I can remember expansion packs which were normally full price being the size of only a couple dlc packs these days.

Rednog:

Sean Strife:
Also to add to this: after the fiasco with Aliens: Colonial Marines, who's to say that they aren't outright lying to us about this? How about this gaming industry, if you want us to quit thinking you're all a bunch of filthy liars, show us some proof instead of just expecting us to take your word on it. You know, just a suggestion, seeing as you people haven't exactly fostered a lot of trust in us, especially in the past couple years.

What are you talking about?
First of all Visceral had nothing to do with Colonial Marines and to somehow staple that nonsense to every developer is ludicrous.
And what proof would satisfy you? The development cycle of games is well known, if you want something like a personalized tour of each company and daily reports on what they're doing just to convince you, don't be surprised when it doesn't happen.

Where did I at any point insinuate Visceral had anything to do with Colonial Marines? The point I was trying to make was ever since that incident, it's really hard to take any AAA developer or publisher at face value anymore because if we can't trust the people who gave us Borderlands at face value anymore, who can we trust?

I love how he says this as if it matters.

You'd expect the game industry to knock it off by now actually. Especially if they are "innocent" you'd expect them to at least delay their DLC a month or two.

That said when it comes to expansions, the basic idea was supposed to be to wait and see if a game does well and then develop DLC if it does, to prolong the playtime. Right now even in the "best case" scenarios we're seeing them puking out DLC right from the beginning. We're at least seeing it planned right alongside the games, which means that effort/concepts/planning that could be going into the game itself, rather than something people are coming up with after the fact to extend it.

I'll also say that I find the denial here kind of funny, since "Dead Space 3" is at least struggling. I mean just yesterday we saw people already cutting the price by 50%, and the industry is abuzz with rumors that it performed so badly that "Dead Space 4" was cancelled despite being under development... which is kind of a "WTF" thing when you even consider a sequel was under development for a game that hadn't even been out a month to begin with, even before you get into the rumors that maybe it was cancelled.

A game shadowed by this much crap, suddenly having a piece of DLC shot out for it which "wasn't developed until after the game" is kind of eye rollingly stupid. "Hey, the game is dropping in price by 50%, people are mocking the microtransaction system, this is OBVIOUSLY doing well, let's do a DLC campaign....".

I know the song and the dance by now, and yes it IS circular, but all I can wonder at is why. This becoming the norm has become even stupider than the arguements.

Therumancer:
You'd expect the game industry to knock it off by now actually. Especially if they are "innocent" you'd expect them to at least delay their DLC a month or two.

That said when it comes to expansions, the basic idea was supposed to be to wait and see if a game does well and then develop DLC if it does, to prolong the playtime. Right now even in the "best case" scenarios we're seeing them puking out DLC right from the beginning. We're at least seeing it planned right alongside the games, which means that effort/concepts/planning that could be going into the game itself, rather than something people are coming up with after the fact to extend it.

DLC sells better the sooner it is released.

There is no incentive for developer/publishers to delay the release of DLC. They'd just be screwing themselves out of profit.

Zhukov:

Therumancer:
You'd expect the game industry to knock it off by now actually. Especially if they are "innocent" you'd expect them to at least delay their DLC a month or two.

That said when it comes to expansions, the basic idea was supposed to be to wait and see if a game does well and then develop DLC if it does, to prolong the playtime. Right now even in the "best case" scenarios we're seeing them puking out DLC right from the beginning. We're at least seeing it planned right alongside the games, which means that effort/concepts/planning that could be going into the game itself, rather than something people are coming up with after the fact to extend it.

DLC sells better the sooner it is released.

There is no incentive for developer/publishers to delay the release of DLC. They'd just be screwing themselves out of profit.

That sounds like an arguement contrived by the industry to justify their behavior, I'm sure they could back it with their own statistics, but that would be questionable by the source as well.

To be honest I would believe that it's more cost efficient to produce DLC along with the game because they have the entire team together and working with those assets/art concepts/etc... as opposed to pulling those people back from other projects down the road and putting them to work with assets they had moved away from.... which isn't quite the same thing.

By way of justification I'd point out that the first "expansions" of this sort were the expansions produced by Origin systems, things like "Secret Missions" for Wind Commander, or the "Forge Of Virtue" or "Silver Seed" for Ultima 7/7 part 2, which lead to a lot of imitators for a while. Albiet the basic idea had existed before then the whole concept of "Alternate Reality" (The City, The Dungeon, etc...) for the C-64 was to create a game that could be gradually expanded in this fashion even if it never panned out. Apparently it was Origin's success with their expansion packs that largely brought them to the attention of a predatory EA to begin with.

The idea of DLC was to allow game companies to produce that kind of content cheaply and efficiently, so it could be delivered far less expensively. The idea being that they could say release the equivilent of "Silver Seed" for a couple of bucks if they didn't need to worry about packaging, shipping, discs, etc... This later mutated away from actual expansions to existing, successful games, that still had an interests, into the idea of quick and simple additions (like dropping specific weapons onto a vendor, or one specific map/level) which could be heavily monetized.

The current DLC we see now represents a corruption of the idea taken to it's logical conclusion where as soon as a game is conceived, ways to monetize it and sell DLC are considered immediatly, regardless of it's success, with things kept back from the game to be turned into DLC, or in some extreme cases (like with Capcom) put onto the disc but locked out unless you pay extra money to unlock them, with the company cutting as much as they can for later sale while still being able to defend calling something "a complete game".

The point here is that while I'm sure a company like EA will tell you they "need" to do this because it's the only way they can make money off of it, those who have been around for a while can pretty much tell you this is complete Bull because we were there when the idea started (before it was "downloadable" content and just additional content), with the expansions that started the trend being things that were released well after the original games, planned seperatly, and sold well enough to get this kind of attention to begin with.

We might have to agree to disagree here, but as far as I'm concerned it's complete bunk. I'm sure it DOES maximize their profit at the expense of integrity, but that's about all there is to it, I personally don't buy their claims about time frame, I personally think it's a matter of it being more optimal to cut a product and figure out avenues of exploitation to begin with, than it is to build a proper expansion later.

Are people upset about this coming out? Why? It's been a month since the game came out. I would complain if I felt stiffed by DS3, but it was the longest and most well developed of the whole series. While it wasn't perfect, I'm looking forward to this DLC because I still want more of the game.

DrunkOnEstus:

In that regard, I totally agree with you. Visceral are masters of game design, honestly. The HUD being seamlessly integrated into the suit, the hidden loading times, tight mechanics...they're just masters of their craft. I can totally believe that in their offices, everyone is on the same page and is damned good at what they do. Visceral specifically probably never ends up a couple months before gold wondering how the hell to finish things with none of it planned beforehand.

I have a somewhat unrelated question for you, for discussion's sake. What do you think about DLC that's developed by an entirely different company, like the Borderlands 2 Season Pass? I kind of see those DLC as small games that really ought to be XBLA games or something, that get better sales due to an expectation that they match the quality of the "main" product. I find it somewhat deceptive. People drop an extra 30 bucks on their purchase expecting even more of what they love, when the "extra" content isn't really at all an extension of the experience they enjoyed on the disc.

Sure.

My opinion on DLC by a different company is... I don't care if a different company makes it so long as it's GOOD. Many games, core or DLC, are handled by different companies and, if the company is talented and has respect for the property, it all works out in the end. If they're doing it because they were asked to and the company who commissioned them did it to save a few pennies with a cheaper studio, then obviously the drive and passion to match the quality of the original isn't there.

But I DO know that something like the Borderlands 2 DLC, as lackluster and ill-received as it has been, is largely based on the pre-existing code and assets of the original game. It wouldn't work very well as a stand-alone "small" game because it uses 90% of the main game to run in the first place (models, animation, programming, enemy AI, etc.), and if you made it a stand-alone the file size would balloon to massive numbers (which is also vastly more expensive and time consuming to host and download). It makes sense, for both creators and players, to tailor it as DLC to the core game and use those assets to handle the muscle of the DLC rather than fill up harddrives with data that, technically, their disc already has.

But DLC is just like a main game, only smaller; even if you liked the original, there is no telling what the DLC is going to be like. That's why I never buy a Season Pass for a game I just got without knowing full well what exactly the money I'm spending is going to. Maybe I'd hate it. Maybe I'd like it. But I'm not gambling with it until it comes out, I get feedback, I hear from friends and critics, and then make an informed, not emotional, decision.

In that regard, it doesn't matter who makes the DLC. There are examples of both great DLC and terrible DLC. Ultimately, nobody will remember how it was made, when it came out, or what its file size was if the DLC is incredibly good and satisfying. And, ultimately, good DLC SHOULD be able to stand on its own, even if it relies heavily on the game its attached to. I can plug in Mass Effect 2's "Lair of the Shadow Broker" and get the essence of everything great about the franchise in that chunk. I can play Dragon Age: Awakening and it feels like a complete game that showcases everything the core game has to offer. Inversely, I can play other DLC that feel lacking, either in the narrative, gameplay, layout, originality, tone, etc.

It's a balancing act. Some people treat DLC with respect, and with respect to the franchise it belongs to. Others, well, just want to make a few extra dollars at your expense with cheaply made, lackluster, quickly-developed DLC cash-ins designed exclusively to milk a few extra dollars from you with a Season Pass before you know the DLC is actually terrible.

It depends on the people who make it. If you have enough faith in a company to do right by you (Valve comes to mind), then I wouldn't think twice about diving in. But if history has proven them untrustworthy, tread with caution and be patient with DLC until you're sure you want it.

Grey Carter:

"Dead Space 3 is finished months before it's actually sold So in that time we a have team with nothing to do."

"it was developed by a smaller set of our team that were run with a different producer"

When you you use a justification to solve a problem it helps if it solves that problem or it just looks like your full of it.

And they are full of it the truth is something they simply cant say " Hey Look its a massive franchise and we think you will pay 100 dollars for it but we cant just whack that on the box so were going to dlc mine your wallets. DLC is when we release micro particles of content that are around 5% the size of the original game but charge you a quarter of its price.
it's simple economics a product with a high demand bears a higher price tag, we just sell more if we brake it up rather than selling the whole original product for 100 bucks."

The thing is they are just responding to market forces, the last console generation really opened it up to the mainstream.
Now i and others really resent DLC simply because before this time games were released on the PC they had content patches and updates for free and we might be expected to pay for an expansion pack which were massive content wise to a dlc pack.

The problem is the consumers because they buy it, it doesn't matter what we say it only matters what we do and while people will pay full price for a fifa game that's basically 5 mins of work updating a roster, will buy the next COD game thats spat out pay for the premium online service , map packs, dlc and micro transactions all on one game.

Demand is creating supply, nothing more and its not their fault its ours.

CrossLOPER:

Ukomba:
Come on people, this is the exact same thing as ME3. How game development works shouldn't be a surprise at this point.

Yeah, I mean come on! They have to spend that time between end of development and release to spruce up all that content they withheld and repackage it as DLC.

I mean what are you all, stupid? You expect to pay full price for a game and get the whole game?

YOU. ARE. THICK.

And entitled.

Nice. I'm sorry but did you accidentally get a version of the game that ended half way through? I'm pretty sure mine was a whole game. So was my ME3. You know, if EA stopped doing DLC all together, it wouldn't mean you'd have gotten this in the game, you just wouldn't have gotten it at all.

Seems the only way to make some people happy is to not let anyone have DLC. Some people are just really into the equal distribution of misery I guess.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here