On disk DLC: what's with the controversy?

Nintendo sort of dabbled with on-disk content to an extent with Splatoon. It was clear that some of the early 'DLC' maps were present in the game from the start, since they were re-purposed for single-player missions. Some folks got testy about that, and some reviewers dinged the game for lacking content.

Of course, the difference here is that they don't make you pay for any new content, and the grand majority of the new weapons, maps, modes and gear ended up coming out after the game was done.

So now, Splatoon is held up as a positive model of how to distribute content over time and keep multiplayer communities vibrant.

edited 11th Dec '15 1:00:57 AM by edvedd

Probably mentioned before, but development on a game ends way before the game is released. So, DLC that's released on the day of release or soon after has probably been worked on after the game is done in proper.

What are developers gonna do? Sit on their thumbs until the game starts selling? On disk DLC is different usually. It was finished during the development of the game, it was just decided to use a paywall. This isn't always the case: some on disk DLC is very much unfinished and is just there to facilitate installation of the rest of the DLC.

DLC done right? Witcher 3. After the game was released, they were STILL working on two separate expansions, Hearts of Stone and Roses and Wine. (Did I get their names right?) Regardless, the second is basically adding a new friggin area of world to explore much like Velen, Novigrad or Skellige which is amazing. They basically just added another 1/4 to the game of playable content if you count the other three areas as 3/4. This is DLC done right.

Here's my question about the artists and developers needing something to do after their work is over—why is this only now a problem, after we've established the precedent that people will pay extra for horse armor? I don't recall about hearing about the tragic regular purges of workless artists for the first twenty-odd years of PC gaming, so why is this suddenly my problem to correct by paying more?

A major part of the problem is that "consumer trust" is a currency the industry gives zero fucks about. They don't want it, they don't need it, if you give it to them they'll throw it away and insult your intelligence. So why should anyone trust them that the DLC on the disk at launch is partially finished or that otherwise workless staff produced it, and not content they stripped out to sell extra for?

edited 11th Dec '15 9:53:59 AM by Rotpar

Back before DLC was a thing, the Industry was less... officialized? I don't know what word I'm looking for. Artists and members of the development team would be moved around once their job on a project was done. The Concept Art Phase of Game X is done? Great! Go work Concept Art for Game Y.

Things were less about who they wanted on the squad and more on who was available.

Well, at least, some studios were like that. Others would just pay the members of the team until the game was done with and some people would have nothing to do until it was out on the market. All the while the studio is grumbling that they're paying people who aren't doing anything.

I don't know where this "After release, game developpers don't have anything to do without DLC!" because AFAIK from actually working for some companies, that's not the case. Basically everyone is lined up for another project. There's no company that would be this inefficient. DLC teams often tend to be made of only a fraction of the game's original staff anyway (or sometimes entirely new teams), since you don't need the engine coders often when adding levels and weapons. Coz, well, the game's built already,

edited 11th Dec '15 10:39:32 AM by CobraPrime

Yeah, that's a nonsensical argument. To make day one DLC you have to start making it well inside the production schedule of the main game. You aren't squeezing out something in the two months between the game being finished and launch day, and day one DLC by definition is on the disc and you are just downloaded an access code. It's sometimes the same thing with the first DLC pack a couple months later, the entire first Destiny expansion was an unlock code (you can tell because it's unlikely they were able to fit all that content in 58 mb).

I feel that in the modern gaming environment that maps and cosmetic additions should be free, it's story content and associated equipment that you should pay for.

And then you have games that don't even bother changing the disk locked content to suit that it's something you separately buy.

Like Phantom Pain for example. Gee you just bought The Boss Sneaking Suit and want to use it? You have to wait for 2 hours (all while playing in game) after beginning development on it.

edited 11th Dec '15 11:12:22 AM by Ukokira

Depends on the game, for a game with major online components I'd rather cosmetic components be paid for. They don't affect the gameplay and are a good way for a dev to make extra bucks.

edited 11th Dec '15 11:16:00 AM by CobraPrime

I mean, to some extent a lot of DLC, if not all, is cut content.

For various reasons features that the developers want aren't able to make the first cut because of time constraints, or because they haven't worked out all the bugs, or they just couldn't quite figure out how to get things exactly the way they wanted them in time for release.

Like.

To use an example, Knights of the Old Republic II from Obsidian. An infamously unfinished game.

The publisher wouldn't let them release a free patch to fix all the glitches and restore the missing content in the game, but if they had released a patch to fix the glitches, and also asked customers to pay for a DLC to restore the missing content? Would the publishers have allowed it then? Would customers have bought it? Would it have been moral and/or ethical, or right?

I actually disagree with the notion that DLC should necessarily only be made after the game's been finished. I mean, there is a legitimate excuse for "that should just be in the main game!", but it isn't always true.

In general, I'd argue that DLC is best when it's something noticeably separate from the main game. For example, a separate campaign. New Vegas's DLC is great for this-most DLC in it is a mini-campaign in a new setting.

As for On-Disc-DLC...eh, I'm not a huge fan. Or at least, I'd say, if you own the disc, you own the stuff ON the disk. It's one thing to keep it as something separate, another to put content on the disc and lock it behind a paywall. This, of course, is excluding Skylander's-like gimmicks. I mean, technically I wouldn't consider it unethical to hack a Skylanders to unlock every character-but on the other hand collecting figures is just part of the game.

I heard the "needing something to do between finishing a game and release" from former game testers.

Probably different for different publishers.

@the $75 argument: If an RPG walls off features on the disc to sell a cheaper game and expect the hardcore fans to spend $15 extra dollars for content that's already there, that's slimy as hell.

If they want to sell it so bad, gouge it out of the game and sell it back. Have the decency to keep it to themselves before they sell it, instead of unlocking what's always been on the disc.

I'm not anti-DLC, even when it's really bad. People are going to buy what they want, and I'm cool with that. My one gripe is when you buy a game with a bunch of cool, fun crap on the disc, but you're expected to pay to play with it. The same content could be a downloadable purchase and I wouldn't care - it might have some supporting code to smoothly integrate it into the game, that's alright too. But locking out whole other features, characters, missions that are on the disc you bought and expecting a payout to unlock what was always there in the first place - single player content - is a scummy business practice. Keeping half a game as DLC is scummy too, but it's more respectable than having everything together on launch and requiring a fee to access what's already there. It's like selling someone the same thing twice.

The whole thing gets worse when you start double charging a game like that, and the Release Version of the game is crap and/or bugged and glitched to Hell with tons of other problems.

For example, Battlefield 4. It might not have had Disk-Locked-Content but its DLC in total cost the same as the vanilla game with even less available. And it was hilariously bad and glitched too!

Imagine a released game like that and THEN throw on the sleaziness and scumminess that is Disk-Locked-Content.

I still give Smash 4 and Mario Kart 8 the "DLC done right" thing as they were made after the games were finished and, in Smash's case, when Sakurai was satisfied with the final game.