On the ethics and practicalities of DLC

[Jakalak]

If the majority of gamers really hated the DLC model, all it would take is some developers ditching the model and having the gamers flock to buy their games. Or people would just buy the base game and never buy DLCs. The fact that developers earn so much money with DLCs is because, in the end, gamers choose to buy those DLCs.

We consumers are in no way forced or coerced to but DLCs, something that a lot of people, including you, apparantly think is the case.

this is... still a p. terrible argument

why on earth would a developer take the chance that doing that would entail? regardless, even if they did, claiming that one developer doing that would change the system for everybody (not to mention the fact that it would 1) have to be actually a good game 2) would have to be every genre at once, including grand-strategy, and you know how many grand-strategy companies there are, in order to have an actual effect on the market) reveals an incredible ignorance about how the market actually works and a wonderful belief in the 'invisible hand'.

no one is 'forced' to buy anything, i get it.

some people apparently just want better games and they have to pay for that to happen (which is enforced by pdox and every other company) BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE COERCED

 

[James The 1st]

The problem comes when features that clearly should be in the game or that can be gotten for free from mods (like the dynasty packs or the EUIV-CKII converter) are put into DLC's. Or worse. When features are cut out and set "for later DLC's", that's being cheap.

By that logic, games should be free because someone can do it for nothing.
Nothing is cut out just to sell it as something else.

On top of that, EUIII got so much development and content in later expansions that I fret only to think how much will it cost me to get the EUIV content to topple that of EUIII. Probably more than what I spent on EUIII and all its expansions in the first place.

As a regular buyer of EU games, I cannot help but feel cheated. I understand the time it takes to bring on all the features EUIII had, but the engine is practically the same and many fiels are the same still. I don't see a case of "we have to get the most content from EUIII Chronicles into EUIV". I see it more like "We build EUIV as the base, and then we'll make more DLC's". Which feels cheap, because I'll be paying for the same features I already paid for a couple of years ago.

Where do you get that the game has less stuff then EU3? It's not like they completely overhauled the game.

 

[Elfryc]

Now, imagine that the video game industry is Europe. Publishers are countries and developers are regions. Games are units and success in battle equals profit.
It is the year 2003. Some richer countries, upon noticing the success of regiments from certain regions, recruit more regiments from those same regions hoping for a better overall army. Other nations equip their soldiers with halberds, hoping that their longer reach would offer them an advantage. Come 2006, France decides to try out a new method, and arms a few regiments with muskets. Even though it is very easy to train the troops to use them, they manage to defeat larger armies and those armed with halberds, only by churning out small balls of lead at them. By 2013, everyone has come around to using those muskets, and whoever doesn't is completely obliterated, unless they have an insanely large army.

That analogy is interesting, comparing halbards/muskets with extensions/DLCs. However, I would consider the things with another view, refering to the Brittish military historian John Keegan who spoke a lot of ritualized art of war.

The musket is not a good weapon when isolated. It becomes very efficient when used by a whole regiment, firing several muskets in the same time. The first military leader using this way of fighting will win wars, because all halbards won't have any mean to resist, SO they will equip their soldiers with the same muskets.

There was a ritualized fight BEFORE gunpowder, then a transition, then a ritualized fight AFTER gunpowder. That was also the case with the Greek phalanx replaced with the Theban phalanx, then the Macedonian phalanx, then the roman legion (if we would be speaking about EU:Rome). If speaking about V2, that was also the case with machine gun (2 machine guns behind a regiment aren't really usefull; 2 machines guns on the sides or the front are devastating, as French armies in the Battle of the Marne learned in september 1914).

This analogy may be used for other fields than warfare: during 19th century, French peasants refused to use a scythe instead of a sickle because the work was less tiring, but also needed less people, so didn't permit their families to earn as much money. That was a social battle, a fight between progress/regression/evolution points of view, everybody using the word he thought more appropriate, depending of his views on the subject.

And I believe that's the same with lot of things in videogaming: extensions vs DLCs, CD/DVD vs digital download and so on. Whatever we think of all of that, we have the choice between adaptation to a new period, or stay behind of all improvment/evolution/regression (whatever word you prefer, I don't want to take any party here).

 

[sirmiah]

The problem comes when features that clearly should be in the game or that can be gotten for free from mods (like the dynasty packs or the EUIV-CKII converter) are put into DLC's. Or worse. When features are cut out and set "for later DLC's", that's being cheap.

On top of that, EUIII got so much development and content in later expansions that I fret only to think how much will it cost me to get the EUIV content to topple that of EUIII. Probably more than what I spent on EUIII and all its expansions in the first place.

As a regular buyer of EU games, I cannot help but feel cheated. I understand the time it takes to bring on all the features EUIII had, but the engine is practically the same and many fiels are the same still. I don't see a case of "we have to get the most content from EUIII Chronicles into EUIV". I see it more like "We build EUIV as the base, and then we'll make more DLC's". Which feels cheap, because I'll be paying for the same features I already paid for a couple of years ago.

If you feel cheated, then don't buy it?

You do realize that the DLC for EU4 is not "cut out" content, right? The way Paradox creates DLC is to put team members that have finished their work prior to the polishing stage (such as the art team) on the DLC projects so they have a reason to keep playing them in the late stages of the game's development. If you think what they produce isn't worth the money, don't give your money to them. Personally, I'm more than happy to throw cash at them - For the amount of enjoyment I've gotten out of their titles, even if I bought all their games and DLC three times over, I'd still be walking away with a hell of a deal.

There are not arbitrary prices that games are "worth." They are worth what you're willing to pay for them. And in my experience, Paradox games have been worth far more than I've ended up paying.

 

[towerbooks3192]

I have to admit that I miss the days when Expansions really meant expansions and are really worth a bang for your buck and really add a lot to a game. The major advantage of DLCs is that devs could release it as sort of many updates in a short period of time over waiting for an expansion to be released like lets say the time you wait for the next Civilization expansion. The only thing I hate is that most DLCs released by devs nowadays is only for money grabbing purposes and never provide something really significant and solely made for aesthetic purposes.

I don't mind DLCs as long as they are reasonably priced and they are worth the money. My only wish what paradox would do is bundle their DLCs so it would feel like a full expansion. (eg: Old Gods,Hymn to the old gods, Norse sprite and portrait pack as a whole expansion package)

 

[MrLebanon]

Can we stop opening these threads and discussing them to death?

In reality - they don't warrant discussion.

Reality is the deciding factor will be our wallets. And clearly myself & others like me buy enough CK2 DLCs (out of our own will) for Pdox to realize it's a fruitful way to do business and they will continue to do so for EUIV and I (and others) will continue to buy them.

Like it or not as long as people wanna buy them they will be produced and be sold.

 

[dragon123]

This day1 dlc bs will only get worse in the future,from cutting out content ,to leaving out content so they can release it as dlc ,on release day no less.
But it seems most people on here support it ,so here's to the future .

 

[adoniram]

I don't mind buying DLC, and I have bought all of it for CK2. What feels a bit strange is having day 0 DLC being released same day as the game. Somehow I get the ( erroneous ) thought that the DLC is stuff they decided break out from the game and selling separatly ( at a greater profit )

But on the other hand they need something to include in the Digital Deluxe edition as well

 

[Doukan]

This day1 dlc bs will only get worse in the future,from cutting out content ,to leaving out content so they can release it as dlc ,on release day no less.
But it seems most people on here support it ,so here's to the future .

That line hasn't quite been crossed yet...
At least not by paradox.

 

[unmerged(751656)]

I don't mind the DLC at all, what I don't like is paradox cutting out parts of the DLC (music, units, in the case of ck2: portraits, etc...). If I'm paying $15 on top of a game I've already paid full price for, I should expect a full DLC and not just the gameplay element of a DLC.

 

[BaronMouths]

how i would have loved to pay out of my ass for more content for civ 1, system shock, or sid meiers pirates. Alas, it was the golden olden times, and nothing of the like was to be had.

this

 

[RX2000]

It all boils down to this:

In a free market system such as the one we have, people get to vote with their money. Obviously, the continued success of DLC means that enough people like it for it to be economically viable. If it was truly evil & a bad deal, etc etc, then no one would buy it & companies would stop making it.

I love DLC, especially for awesome games such as CK2. Programmers have to eat, pay rent, buy clothes, & feed their families too, ya know?

 

[Rommel22]

I refuse to buy into the DLC marketing gimmick. It is just another way of a company to get consumers to spend more money. One does not have to buy it, this has been said since the first DLC came out. Yes, we all understand this. However the DLC sometimes (with Paradox in this example) contains things that should have been included in the game to begin with. Like country flags for a specific nation, events, leaders, sprites, etc, etc. Sometimes certain DLC is available upon release of the game, if one pre-orders the game.

If it is available on release, why not just include it in the game upon release, and not charge extra for it? Even with Paradox game, they take some content out of the game, even if minor and offer it as DLC for extra charge. We can debate content, and how much of it. However this is evident with EUIV and with CK2.

Don't get me wrong, I will still buy Paradox games, but it is obvious they are taking the same approach as many other studious do now. Nickel-dime to consumer for everything. A few years from now, you're going to be paying money to "unlock" a certain nation (or events, or units, etc) as DLC.

 

[Rommel22]

It all boils down to this:

In a free market system such as the one we have, people get to vote with their money. Obviously, the continued success of DLC means that enough people like it for it to be economically viable. If it was truly evil & a bad deal, etc etc, then no one would buy it & companies would stop making it.

I love DLC, especially for awesome games such as CK2. Programmers have to eat, pay rent, buy clothes, & feed their families too, ya know?

Just because it is successful, doesn't mean it's good. Just because most people buy into it, like many things in life, does not equal it being good for them. Thousands of people fall for scams every day in the thought that they know what they are doing. In the end they lose money.

Please, programmers make plenty of money, they make money from the titles alone.

 

[MrLebanon]

Who says country flags "should" be in the base game? Go back to the "good ol' days" - if game devs didn't have the resources & time to put things in - they simply weren't put in. Would you like to go back to the days where games would sit unfinished do to a lack of funds? No thanks...

 

[Sepulcher]

This day1 dlc bs will only get worse in the future,from cutting out content ,to leaving out content so "they" can release it as dlc ,on release day no less.
But it seems most people on here support it ,so here's to the future .

Who is "they"?

Its a good system that is far superior than the old system, now you can pick and choose what you want rather than paying out of your arse for things you dont want (divine wind) just to get patches.

 

[Rommel22]

Who says country flags "should" be in the base game? Go back to the "good ol' days" - if game devs didn't have the resources & time to put things in - they simply weren't put in. Would you like to go back to the days where games would sit unfinished do to a lack of funds? No thanks...

Expansion, patches. DLC in its current form "provides" content that should have been included to begin with. Many times it is content that has already been developed with the game. Why take it out of the game, and then charge extra for it? To me it is not different than someone selling a car and then taking windows out, selling them as "DLC" at in increased price.

"Well your car works just fine without them, you can drive and do everything it was designed for." Sure thing, you're right. But those windows prevent rain, road debris, etc. from getting in your car when driving. It's part of the car, designed along with the car. But hey, not it's optional to get them, for an extra charge. Aren't you happy?

 

[PortugueseSea]

more development, more complexity; the opportunity to address requests and desires by the gamer community.

Also, nobody is forced to buy it, if you think the content is not worth the price, do not purchase it.

I see nothing wrong with the system, technically or morally,

Brief note,

It all boils down to this:

In a free market system such as the one we have, people get to vote with their money. Obviously, the continued success of DLC means that enough people like it for it to be economically viable. If it was truly evil & a bad deal, etc etc, then no one would buy it & companies would stop making it.

I love DLC, especially for awesome games such as CK2. Programmers have to eat, pay rent, buy clothes, & feed their families too, ya know?

 

[Sepulcher]

Expansion, patches. DLC in its current form "provides" content that should have been included to begin with. Many times it is content that has already been developed with the game. Why take it out of the game, and then charge extra for it? To me it is not different than someone selling a car and then taking windows out, selling them as "DLC" at in increased price.

"Well your car works just fine without them, you can drive and do everything it was designed for." Sure thing, you're right. But those windows prevent rain, road debris, etc. from getting in your car when driving. It's part of the car, designed along with the car. But hey, not it's optional to get them, for an extra charge. Aren't you happy?

Seing that you can only express your argument using meaningless metaphores, I can only explaim MY argument through the strategic use of mona lisa.

http://www.mdd-marketing.co.uk/files/dlc.jpg

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

Why do we keep having this debate? Every few weeks or so, another thread about DLC is posted, and we see the exact same arguments repeated over and over again. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of it.