Day one DLC done right

[Clord]

While day one DLC is generally frowned upon or so they claim, it makes wonder what is a good way to do it.


1. Soundtrack DLC.


2. Art DLC.


3. Generally any DLC that doesn't modify in-game stuff.


Of course if person is dishonest, he could start to develop in-game DLC content (new areas etc) before the game is even out and then plan ahead for their release to make it look like development time wasn't used on them while making the game. Now this is a grey area as it is hard to be proved by the customers.

 

[IRHP]

Even those should be included in-game, other games have before, but they're certainly the lesser of two evils. There's no excuse for  most Day-1 DLC, IMO. Very anti-consumer concept.

What's worse is pre-order bonuses along the same lines. I really can't stand it.

 

[Zeriab]

It does not really make sense for us. As indie devs we do not have huge marketing machines and packaging schemes that have to start way before the game is actually released.
Day one DLCs is a way to allow the actual development team to work much closer to the release day. With big organizations, that extra time may very well be significant.
From what I have seen of commercial RM releases doing a day one DLC is just silly.

I do not see any reason why the three points you have should be a day one DLC. Just have it ready immediately, or wait a week. No harm done.

*hugs*
 - Zeriab

 

 

[Clord]

I have a few manga, wallpapers and soundtrack to give in Deluxe Edition. I fail to see negative side of this practice as it is up to buyer if he/she believes it is worth the extra price.

 

[Tsukihime]

My assumption is that in the gaming industry, between development and publishing, there's some steps in between where the game is done, tested, but "STUFF" is involved in order to get it out to market.


So it's like someone's developed a program and has fully tested it, and then decided to put that out for release.


And while it's being reviewed by other teams and whatnot, the team decided to add more stuff (extra music, extra art, whatever).


Once the game hits the market, we now have all this extra stuff that was unavailable in the version that was sent for publishing. What to do? $$$ it.


Under this assumption, I don't really see an issue with day one DLC. There are devs that will likely set some timelines in advance. They may have announced it on their blogs or websites, or put it on their crowdfunding campaign, and now they're kind of stuck with it. They can of course move the dates because they're not obligated to follow it, but that's not a good idea.


And for whatever reason, if they're behind schedules or things happen and they're unable to have all of the content implemented before the deadline, they may have a fully tested version available without all of the content (eg: extra quests, maps, objects, and so on).

I do not see any reason why the three points you have should be a day one DLC. Just have it ready immediately, or wait a week. No harm done.

But yes, why does it have to be released on day one?


Just release it later on. Advertise it as a separate product. Use it as a way to prolong the life of the product. I don't see the point of day one DLC.

I have a few manga, wallpapers and soundtrack to give in Deluxe Edition. I fail to see negative side of this practice as it is up to buyer if he/she believes it is worth the extra price.

Which is fine. It's like when Blizzard was selling those limited edition packs/boxes for premium prices. Players of course had the option to not buy them and just go with something cheap. I'm sure there were people that felt entitled to the premium box set, but they probably didn't get much support for their rants.


But I'd say this is different from day one DLC, especially if the content was already on the disk or whatever media you used to deliver the "original" game.

 

[Clord]

I will sell digital only product on Steam. I don't have funds to mass produce physical copies without too much risk involved.

 

[starcrescendo]

I don't know what steam allows you to do, but I would just make there be two versions of the game, one standard and one "deluxe" edition that has the additional add-ons. Day one DLC just puts a bad taste in people's mouth. While technically the same thing, I don't think the "deluxe version" has the same negative connotations.

 

[Espon]

I don't consider soundtracks and artwork as DLC.  They're just extras that some people enjoy as collectibles.  DLC is typically stuff that modifies or adds to the game in some way.

Things I don't mind being day-one DLC: costumes, useless power-ups
Things that should not be day-one DLC: optional content, extra quests, important characters, endings

I don't mind if the company releases new content months later after the game was released, but I shouldn't have to pay more for content that's already sitting there on the disk or downloaded but I cannot access without throwing in extra money.  These are things that used to always be included with the game when you bought it before consoles started using the internet.

 

[Clord]

I don't know what steam allows you to do, but I would just make there be two versions of the game, one standard and one "deluxe" edition that has the additional add-ons. Day one DLC just puts a bad taste in people's mouth. While technically the same thing, I don't think the "deluxe version" has the same negative connotations.

Yes I have done it as many of the games lately on Steam. Deluxe Edition can be bought directly but DLC is listed in a case someone want to buy it later (plus it is how Valve wants to handle it in a case someone wants to "upgrade" their game or other stuff.)

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Most games that have "deluxe" editions still have the DLCs buyable separately in case you don't want most of what's included in the Deluxe package... I'm not really a fan of any type of DLC though.

 

[Tsukihime]

I don't mind if the company releases new content months later after the game was released, but I shouldn't have to pay more for content that's already sitting there on the disk or downloaded but I cannot access without throwing in extra money.  These are things that used to always be included with the game when you bought it before consoles started using the internet.

I'd imagine these were what people used to call "expansion packs": it's not really a sequel, but it's not really something that was available with the original.


But reading the history of DLC's, it was widely available since whenever long-distance networking capabilities existed and was used for commercial purposes.

Most games that have "deluxe" editions still have the DLCs buyable separately in case you don't want most of what's included in the Deluxe package... I'm not really a fan of any type of DLC though.

Ya, it's better to just not bother with extra content in the first place no matter how much your fans want it.

 

[Andar]

There are two different things that a lot of people are forgetting.


1) online and download publication is a lot faster than any offline printing and production.


And that is not only due to the time needed for the actual production - I know that a lot of printing presses have scheduled slots, and if you miss that the next free slot might be a long time after that. I know of a famous author who missed the manuscript date due to an illness by a few weeks, and the publishing of the book was postponed half a year (or a full year in another case) because that was the next available production slot.


In the case of a game, they can't afford to miss such slots, and that means if they had some setbacks, they still have to keep that date and try to get everything done for patching in the time between sending the program to the CD production and the true release date.


2) nothing is free - any content no matter where has to be paid for.


The choice isn't between paying additional content or not.


It's between "content and price included in the game" or "content and price separately from the game".


If you wanted the DLC (no matter if its day one or later) to be included in the original game, then all player would have to pay a game price that is the combination of the DLC and Game prices - you wouldn't pay one cent less, that would only remove the option for some players to decide if they want to pay the extra for the additional content.


So what do you prefer: enforcing a higher price for everyone while enforcing to purchase game and DLC in a single package, or allowing some players to purchase the game without the additional cost for content they might not be interested in?

 

[Alexander Amnell]

I would advise against day one schemes; especially for an indie dev without the time constraints that physical releases have to 'excuse' it.

Maybe in a few cases the whole argument that dlc was worked on after it was sent for processing Is true, but I'd argue that practice is rare and have willfully refused to buy entire games based on the practice in the past. Bio ware is a prime example of this, I loved dragon age origins as a game, but bio wares penchant for dlc gouging put me off to the point where I didn't touch da2 until it was 10 dollars at a replays and never tried mass effect until it was released as a complete set and then waited till I could buy all three games for 20 bucks. Still haven't touched a single dlc beyond watching the content on YouTube; and there's no excuse for jacik not being in game to begin with, he adds to much to the main story to argue that. All these are games I'd likely have bought for retail price otherwise, but overhyped early dlc like the stone guardian and story important dlc in a story driven game like witch hunt left me feeling like patience was a better option.

Maybe you won't lose that many customers and maybe there's a fair way to make it, but from what I've seen the practice mostly amounts to price gouging, in which case I'd personally make sure to give you as little money as I can.

 

[Espon]

I would advise against day one schemes; especially for an indie dev without the time constraints that physical releases have to 'excuse' it.

Maybe in a few cases the whole argument that dlc was worked on after it was sent for processing Is true, but I'd argue that practice is rare and have willfully refused to buy entire games based on the practice in the past. Bio ware is a prime example of this, I loved dragon age origins as a game, but bio wares penchant for dlc gouging put me off to the point where I didn't touch da2 until it was 10 dollars at a replays and never tried mass effect until it was released as a complete set and then waited till I could buy all three games for 20 bucks. Still haven't touched a single dlc beyond watching the content on YouTube; and there's no excuse for jacik not being in game to begin with, he adds to much to the main story to argue that. All these are games I'd likely have bought for retail price otherwise, but overhyped early dlc like the stone guardian and story important dlc in a story driven game like witch hunt left me feeling like patience was a better option.

Maybe you won't lose that many customers and maybe there's a fair way to make it, but from what I've seen the practice mostly amounts to price gouging, in which case I'd personally make sure to give you as little money as I can.

Ugh, I still remember the stupid guy in Dragon Age 1 that would stand there in your camp and tell you about this quest he needs help with.  He explains to you all the details before revealing at the end that you gotta pay money to unlock it.

 

[Wavelength]

I don't hate Day One DLC as long as it still feels like I have a complete game in front of me without it.

If I'm running into fragments of it wherever I turn (like Espon described about Dragon Age), it's a huge turnoff.  But if I don't notice that there's anything missing in-game as I play (for example, that NPC doesn't even show up, and the aesthetics and narrative of the area still feel complete without him), then I'm fine with it.  Most likely I will simply ignore the DLC, but if I love the game and it looks particularly intriguing in the shop, I may consider a buy.

For this reason, I agree that things like digital artbooks and soundtracks make decent D1DLC.  In the same breath, though, remember that people on Steam have a lot of other games they could buy instead, and adding those extras in as, well, "extras" that come with your purchase feels like a love letter to your players and may convert a lot of purchases from people who might not otherwise have bought the game if they see those things are DLC.  I think that's a better approach for indie developers, and even some AAA studios like Atlus throw in these kinds of extras with a purchase.  There's a reason they're able to call their fans the "Altus Faithful" without anyone laughing.

It helps when the price of the DLC seems fair in proportional to the price of the full game in the amount of content/utility/enjoyment it brings.  If your game is $20 and you're charging $5 for a costume or a relatively short additional quest or a costume, I'm not going to buy it (looking at you, Nippon Ichi!).  I guess it's for this reason that I tend to buy Expansions for games that I really like more often than I buy DLC; it almost universally seems like a better deal.

===

By the way, one idea I had for a future RPG I have planned was to create a "modular" postgame with randomized dungeons, obstacles, quests, and so on - which would start after you defeat the final boss and see the "ending" so that people who enjoy the core gameplay could keep playing forever without retreading through the same content.  It would take a load of work to create and in my eyes it's something that's supplementary to a complete game.  Do you guys think that this would feel fair to you as DLC (or possibly the centerpiece of an expansion pack)?  Or would it feel like "gouging" for something that already should be in the game?  Or is it naive to expect that enough people would play a long RPG through to completion to warrant designing DLC around the postgame?

 

[kerbonklin]

This should be some good material for the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-MQMx-nH4Q

 

[Clord]

I generally like TB's attitude and stuff like that but I gotta say.


All those years I have "followed" him in the internet, he did quite dick move with Nazi Zombie Army video by taking his frustration out of that game and making it example of how he hates zombie "genre" due how overused it is.


Of course I respect his opinions but he has his own faults too especially when he tries to defend his opinions maybe a bit too fanatically.


His WTF series hits my wallet very hard.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

I don't mind if the company releases new content months later after the game was released, but I shouldn't have to pay more for content that's already sitting there on the disk or downloaded but I cannot access without throwing in extra money.  These are things that used to always be included with the game when you bought it before consoles started using the internet.

I think people really don't get how DLC works. Yes, there are companies that abuse it, but in general, things aren't CUT from the game to make DLC. DLC operates under a different budget, and also usually involves people who are already finished with their portion of the game. This is a good infographic on how Day 1 DLC actually works (also humorous to me is how companies literally cannot win. Borderlands the Presequel is being criticized for not having ENOUGH DLC fast enough)

 

[Wavelength]

I totally understand the argument being made here about how the Core Game and Day 1 DLC are two different things - but I don't think it's a particularly good one.  If the D1DLC's dev cycle is short enough that it can be completed in advance of the game, and is minor enough that it can be tested concurrently with the core game as in the graphic above (I've worked in software for several years and I know how risky it is to test core functionality and major enhancements concurrently - so that true, major enhancements won't look exactly like the cycle pictured above), then what you've created is essentially a feature of the core game, not an enhancement that deserves extra payment.

If the going rate for a game like yours is $60 and you choose to charge $40 and then sell the "extra" Day 1 content for $20, I think most consumers will understand (though some will still get cold feet about the D1DLC, which nicely illustrates one of the points you were making about how part of the problem is, indeed, consumer perception).  But if you charge $60 and then try to tack on another $20 for the D1DLC, that's a dangerous game.  Your product better be a lot better than similar games that gave you the whole package for $60, or it's going to justifiably feel like pure avarice.

I'll admit that my argument doesn't address the case where the "core game" really is extensive and complete enough to compete with any other $60 game out there, and the additional $20 of D1DLC just adds more.  This, I'll admit, is probably just an issue with unfair consumer perception.  I wish I had a great idea about how to combat that perception... I'd probably do something like release the most minor things Free on Day 1, and make sure to tell people that there's more to come... then release the paid content in a steady stream in the weeks to come.  It would more closely match the "feel" of the game's value to the "truth" of the value, at least.

On a related note, I think one of the things that really flavor the perception is when something is already loaded onto the physical CD (or, to a lesser extent, the game files for something like a Steam download) and you have to "unlock" these features by paying extra.  This is basically like telling the consumer outright that they were able to get everything onto the disc in time for manufacturing (seeing as physical copies of software have a slightly different release cycle than the graphic, which seems to be for Digital Distribution) - and yet they chose to nickel-and-dime the consumer for extra cash.  It's insult to injury.

 

[Andar]

This is basically like telling the consumer outright that they were able to get everything onto the disc in time for manufacturing (seeing as physical copies of software have a slightly different release cycle than the graphic, which seems to be for Digital Distribution) - and yet they chose to nickel-and-dime the consumer for extra cash.  It's insult to injury.

The problem with that argument (and where the consumer makes the wrong assumption) is that all content has to be paid for.
The base price for the program pays for a fixed amount of content, and if the developer has more content then he needs to be paid extra for that extra content, no matter whether that content was released on day 1 or day 99.


I admit that some game companies have reduced the amount of content in the base game in a way that there is more money for graphics than for playtime content, resulting in the player conception of a short game for a high price (and some publishers really short the developer on money and get short games but charge full for their own profits) - but that has been cause by player demand for high quality graphics instead of high quality games.


And even that is only an argument for not purchasing from companies that try to overcharge the consumer, but it has nothing to do with day one DLC - those exist for all types of companies and there are cases where D1DLC is very good and worth the money.