How do you feel about drm , dlc and artificial expansion packs?

[Clownzilla]

To be fair, the "hard core" gaming audience nickel and dimes the game industry too, by constantly waiting for new releases to go on clearance and never paying full price for anything. Developers and publishers need to make money somehow and die hard gamers, who supposedly love gaming more than anything, are the ones screwing the industry out of money by searching for deals and pirating stuff.

"Wow, I love this developer and I love this series! How do I show my support? By waiting until it's in the bargain bins for $5, of course. I also have a micro SD card full of DS ROMS, a USB hard drive full of Wii ROMS, and shelves full of Dreamcast and PlayStation bootlegs...but hey, I'm a hard core gamer who supports the industry! Screw those 'casual' people who pay full price!"

Your stereotyping hardcore gamers. Many hardcore gamers would never bootleg a game or play roms so that's a weak point to make. On top of that it's pretty hard to bootleg games on the newer systems like the 360 and PS3,

Second, gamers are not saying they are against DLC in general. If the DLC is in addition to the purchased game and only adds to an already full experience then there is nothing wrong with DLC. I don't even think many gamers would argue with online content subscription codes because many gamers understand that servers have to be maintained and used sells don't contribute to the long term use of the product. It's when DLC is used to "finish" an incomplete game that is the problem.

Finally, the only reason why gamers wait for the bargain bin is because the remainder of the gaming audience doesn't see a higher retail value in the product. There are plenty of well made titles that are purchased on day one. Months down the road when it hits the bargain bin is it better that I purchase the game at $20 or not purchase the game at all if it stays at $60? If a game goes straight to the bargain bin then there is something wrong with the game, game marketing, or game release date. That has everything to do with the developer and nothing to do with the consumer.

Don't get me wrong, gaming companies can do anything they want with their property. However, it's going to get to a point where gamers won't find value in the ever increasing prices for gaming entertainment. If DLC keeps increasing prices then the gamer will either stick with (or discover) older, non DLC based systems ( that's where I'm heading myself) or leave the industry behind all together and find another hobby. Hey, I would love people to discover the systems from the PS2 and before and find that they can be just as much fun as the PS3 and the Xbox 360.

[Rob2600]

It's when DLC is used to "finish" an incomplete game that is the problem.

If hard core gamers want to get a full experience, they must be willing to pay full price for new releases.

The more hard core gamers keep waiting for new releases to hit the bargain bin before they finally buy them, the less content developers are going to include in their games.

Hard core gamers want everything, and they want it cheap. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and now because of them, we all get screwed with DLC.

Many hardcore gamers would never bootleg a game or play roms so that's a weak point to make.

Either you're being sarcastic or you're extremely naive.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I see it as reciprocal. They want to set conditions for access and use on something they are producing for sale? Fine. I have conditions when it comes to what I spend my money on.

Econ 101 - Everyone wants the most gain for the least amount of effort possible.

Why are people waiting for games to hit the bargain bin? Because they know the chances of that occurring are good. In that situation, it's not the fault of the customers but it's the fault of the producers. The market price is what the market will bear. If that's the bargain bin, then that is what people have decided it is worth to them. If anyone wants to change that, it's not the customer side that needs tweaking.

[Rob2600]

The market price is what the market will bear. If that's the bargain bin, then that is what people have decided it is worth to them.

Exactly. Hard core gamers want to pay bargain bin prices, which is fine...but then they get mad when developers only fill the disc with a bargain bin's worth of content.

If hard core gamers continue to cheap out on their own hobby, eventually developers will only release shallow cheap games along the lines of Angry Birds or Defend Your Castle.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Worth to who? That's the important aspect. At least until it hits the bargain bin.

My point was, obviously prices across the board are too high.

[Rob2600]

Worth to who? That's the important aspect. At least until it hits the bargain bin.

My point was, obviously prices across the board are too high.

Hard core gamers want a full 20+ hour cinematic gaming experience with HD graphics and online multiplayer, but they want it for cheap. The world doesn't work that way.

Cheap hard core gamers are to blame for our current DLC situation. "Give me the most incredible mind-blowing experience of my life, but don't expect me to pay more than $25 for it." If you only want to pay half price, that's fine...but then developers will only give you half the experience and release the other half as DLC.


"Casual" gamers might only buy six or seven games per console, but at least they pay full price and support the industry.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Incorrect. There are on-going costs associated with maintaining on-line games including file and account management and data streaming. While it's not massive amounts of money, it certainly is in excess of several dollars per player. As such, I have no problem with EA or anyone else charging $10 for used buyers to have on-line access.

... but you already pay a fee to cover online access, account management and data streaming. IT'S CALLED AN XBOX LIVE GOLD MEMBERSHIP!

[PapaStu]

... but you already pay a fee to cover online access, account management and data streaming. IT'S CALLED AN XBOX LIVE GOLD MEMBERSHIP!

EA is a special beast. They before they allowed any of their sports games to be Multiplayer accessable on XBL demanded server control of their games. Doing so allows they to nuke older game servers when they want to, and to 'require' the registration of all these newer games to your system when you boot them up for the first time now. When I fired up Bulletstorm the first time, I had to (if I wanted to do anything online related at all) register my copy by using the code in the back of my manual as well as use my EA.com account to tie that code to my username (on top of the additional tie to my XBL name).

They will get their $$ one way or another.

[Bojay1997]

... but you already pay a fee to cover online access, account management and data streaming. IT'S CALLED AN XBOX LIVE GOLD MEMBERSHIP!

Except none of that money goes to anyone except for Microsoft. It also does not fully subsidize the cost of what it actually costs to run the server infrastructure unless you are one of these rare gamers who only uses it a few hours a week.

[Dobie]

So what I'm getting out of this conversation is that the current "hardcore" market is unsustainable, and there's no room for tiered pricing structures in games. $60 on launch or GTFO.

I can see the financial difficulties game companies have. Technology is a quickly depreciating cost, not an investment, being the bleeding edge game technologically rarely pans out financially. This would be why the current gen has been longer would it not? DLC certainly helps the books... I mean, low distro costs, sometimes simply for an unlock code, extra content can be made with existing art assets. Wouldn't it benefit game companies to DROP the launch price of their middling/average/derivative product at launch to increase the purchase rate of their high margin DLC? Or go the Double Fine route and go smaller, leaner, more frequent but quality product, then put out a couple packs of add-ons?

Looking at last gen, games like Katamari Damacy would never have gained the traction and multiple sequels it had without coming out at the budget price it was. But it seems developers want it both ways... full price at launch, while nickel and diming gamers on the back end with DLC and withheld content too. THAT seems to me to be unsustainable. DLC isn't a negative for gamers, its just not used to its potential, IMO.

[Bojay1997]

So what I'm getting out of this conversation is that the current "hardcore" market is unsustainable, and there's no room for tiered pricing structures in games. $60 on launch or GTFO.

I can see the financial difficulties game companies have. Technology is a quickly depreciating cost, not an investment, being the bleeding edge game technologically rarely pans out financially. This would be why the current gen has been longer would it not? DLC certainly helps the books... I mean, low distro costs, sometimes simply for an unlock code, extra content can be made with existing art assets. Wouldn't it benefit game companies to DROP the launch price of their middling/average/derivative product at launch to increase the purchase rate of their high margin DLC? Or go the Double Fine route and go smaller, leaner, more frequent but quality product, then put out a couple packs of add-ons?

Looking at last gen, games like Katamari Damacy would never have gained the traction and multiple sequels it had without coming out at the budget price it was. But it seems developers want it both ways... full price at launch, while nickel and diming gamers on the back end with DLC and withheld content too. THAT seems to me to be unsustainable. DLC isn't a negative for gamers, its just not used to its potential, IMO.

I think the current financial reality as a number of developers have pointed out in recent days is that there is no longer a viable business model for the "middle class" game. Games with low development costs that can sell massive quantities at low cost can be lucrative for companies, including very large ones and games with large budgets that sell massive quantities can also be financially viable. It's the games in between that unfortunately tend to be the ones we classic gamers are drawn to for their quirkiness or unusual themes and mechanics that are going extinct very rapidly. From a collector's perspective, as well as a gamer's perspective, this makes me doubly sad. I suspect that in the next generation, there will literally be almost no collectible games simply because everything will be either a blockbuster with a full retail release or a downloadable title not available on a physical format. There simply won't be anything in between to really collect.

[Chadt74]

I think this is a very good topic, but there are some some points that need to be addressed. Rob2600 - Your comment of "To be fair, the "hard core" gaming audience nickel and dimes the game industry too, by constantly waiting for new releases to go on clearance and never paying full price for anything" is not exactly correct. Forrester Research in their May 10th, 2011 publication called "which gamer is right for you" divides 'gamers' into four categories one of which is called the Hardcore gamer. This gamer spends $466/yr on gaming (including DLC) and mostly on console gaming; which is by far the highest spend of any category. So your comments do not appear to align with a nation wide research study from a legitimate research firm. We all know that some people pirate games, but even if the hardcore gamers are, they are still heavily contributing to the gaming industry. I think your view of a hardcore gamer is slightly off.

Icarus Moonsight, Econ 101 - "Everyone wants the most gain for the least amount of effort possible". I believe that the basis for Econ is that humans (or systems) have unlimited wants and needs, but have limited resources. Based on that principal your bargain bin argument has to be viewed in a different light. The video game in question has to be viewed as a good along side other goods and with the amount of resources the consumer has available to him/her. The recent economic downturn where the US has had a 10% unemployment rate probably constrained the resources of the general video game buying public and therefore a gamer willing to pay $60 for a brand new title might not have enough resources to pay full price and be forced to wait until that game is $30 since other Needs have to be met first or that good now becomes a luxury item in the eyes of the buyer. Also note that with the people buying video games averaging over 30 years this also points more to the possibility of a re balancing of resources towards needs (family etc) with the slightest interruption of income.

I think this is a very good topic and I hope my comment do not derail the conversation.

[Rob2600]

Forrester Research in their May 10th, 2011 publication called "which gamer is right for you" divides 'gamers' into four categories one of which is called the Hardcore gamer. This gamer spends $466/yr on gaming (including DLC) and mostly on console gaming; which is by far the highest spend of any category.

Just because hard core gamers spend the most money, that doesn't mean they're spending it on new, full priced games. Does the study indicate the $466 per year is spent on brand new games at full price? Or is the $466 spent on games that are on sale and/or used?

In the case of hard core gamers, I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

To me, a "casual" gamer who spends $100 a year on new, full price games supports the industry more than a "hard core" gamer who spends $466 a year on used and marked-down games. Do you agree?

[Icarus Moonsight]

I think the idea that "supporting an industry" is important or essential is incorrect in focus and framing of the problem.

I don't know what content has to do with cost, other than technologies utilized and scale. Themes and ideas can fit whatever tech, medium or scale. I'm not sure if mid tier games being profitable is really an impossibility. Sounds more like an excuse to make only huge expensive games or cheap thrill diversions, negating the mid ground desire level completely. I think that says something about the industry... Either that, or they don't know how to make them work in the current environment. But to say that is to say, "Durr, we no understood how do our jobz."

[Bojay1997]

I think the idea that "supporting an industry" is important or essential is incorrect in focus and framing of the problem.

I don't know what content has to do with cost, other than technologies utilized and scale. Themes and ideas can fit whatever tech, medium or scale. I'm not sure if mid tier games being profitable is really an impossibility. Sounds more like an excuse to make only huge expensive games or cheap thrill diversions, negating the mid ground desire level completely. I think that says something about the industry... Either that, or they don't know how to make them work in the current environment. But to say that is to say, "Durr, we no understood how do our jobz."

I strongly disagree. There are some concepts, themes and ideas which require a budget of a certain level to acheieve. Whether that's because of the precision of the graphics, the sophistication of the AI, the IP attached to it or whatever the reason may be. The "job" of publishers and developers is to make financially viable products so that they can return a profit to their share holders or owners. Finally recognizing that maybe there is little profit to be made in the mid-range is a sign of sophisticiation and maturity for the industry. Unfortunately, I preferred the less mature version of the industry from the collecting and even playing point of view.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I strongly disagree. There are some concepts, themes and ideas which require a budget of a certain level to acheieve. Whether that's because of the precision of the graphics, the sophistication of the AI, the IP attached to it or whatever the reason may be.

Those are technologies, not concepts... Well, IPs are ideas and the only cost there I could conceive of is licensing, which is just a time-saving measure or simply brand piggybacking.

...Finally recognizing that maybe there is little profit to be made in the mid-range is a sign of sophisticiation and maturity for the industry...

Um... I think you just completely lost me.

[Bojay1997]

Those are technologies, not concepts... Well, IPs are ideas and the only cost there I could conceive of is licensing, which is just a time-saving measure or simply brand piggybacking.



Um... I think you just completely lost me.

Yes, they are technologies or rather tools, which provide the canvas on which the concepts can be brought to fruition. IP licensing is not always just a time-saving measure, it can also be a way to extend the connection people have with a brand or a beloved existing character or fantasy world. In addition to licensing costs, most IP holders require a certain level of quality to be applied to their brand. In other words, many IP holders will not just let some programmer or team working out of their basement develop games based on their IP.

The maturity reference was to the level the industry has reached on the business developmnent scale. It's now at the point where decisions are being made with an eye toward maintaining a healthy balance sheet as opposed to just doing something because it would be cool or quirky. Again, not necessarily great for gamers or collectors, but it represents the fact that gaming has become so mainstream that a second crash or collapse of the industry is pretty unlikely. It also means that smaller companies are rapidly being squeezed out in favor of larger ones with the financial means to compete.

[G-Boobie]

I like having the option to download games rather than purchase them physically, especially on my computer. I think I'm at a greater risk of having my physical games stolen than losing access to what I have on Steam.

I don't have any issue with the concept of DLC characters and map packs and such, but I think a lot of other DLC has very little value. I really don't care if DLC is locked on the disc or downloaded, so long as I know what's actually available to me when I purchase the game.
It seems like the majority of 'microtransactions' are aimed at the same chumps who pay for ringtones on their phones. I don't support the monetization of things that should be free, and I find the proliferation of closed platforms like smartphones very troubling.

DRM is kind of a strange beast. If done properly, it could be very useful not only to commercial content providers, but also to individuals who want to keep documents or videos or whatever private and secure. Unfortunately, DRM is almost always implemented in the most hamfisted and counter-productive way possible, and only serves to encourage piracy.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I don't pay for a whole lot of DLC, but on every platform currently out there (excepting Nintendo) the stuff you buy digitally is tied to your account, not the hardware. As long as that's true, I'm not too worried about it. Having the disc is always the better option, but if I want a game that's only available on PSN or XBL, I'll buy it without a second thought.

DRM leads to piracy.

[Necron99]

I'm done thinking about it. I've decided, I'm not buying any of it. There are or will be options which do not include vaseline and a backdoor channel to my bank account.

In agreement with you there. I like to physically own the games I buy, and want to play them when I want and how I want.

[Rickstilwell1]

It's cool to have the option to upgrade your games, but totally not necessary to enjoy the games. Are you a person who likes to sit and play the same game all year or are you the type who would much rather start playing a new game when you finish one? That's the question that matters here.