Developers claim costs for developing for next gen consoles will "double"

[macdaddymario]

Why is it a problem for the developers to put DLC on the disk? I think there's a perception problem where people think that anything that appears on the disk must have been cut from the game, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I think it's just as likely that, during preproduction, they realized that they were going to want to have DLC for the game at some point, and decided to make it while making everything else. They could budget it out so that they expect the game to sell x amount of units, which would justify lets say 100 staff working on the game, and then the DLC would sell y amount of units, which would justify 20 people working on the DLC. In this situation, 120 people in total would be on the staff, and the DLC would have never been made in the first place because those 20 guys would not have been hired.

If anyone does cut stuff from a completed game in order to have DLC on launch, then that's a different story, but we can't assume that that's the case for any given game.

Capcom are the ones that really do this. Take RE5 and SF4 for example. In SF4, the home console and arcade version of the game are the exact same (save control inputs and such).. same amount of memory taken up. In the arcade version, all of the character outfits are unlocked. On the ps3/360, you have to pay something like 6 bucks to get 4 outfits in a pack, there are multiple packs.. and a 100kb unlock to use them. Thus they were on the disc, and just being kept from the player in order to gain more $.

RE5 had those extra missions added.. It was released before the gold edition came out that the 2 extra episodes were ready to be put on the disc and shipped with the launch of the game. Instead, they pulled them from it, and charged an extra 15$ a pop for them.

DLC is fine... if it's actually DLC. By "actual" DLC, I mean, not something you pay for a 100kb unlock, or something that was finished, and ready to be shipped with the game, only to be taken away to add for more $ later. I mean DLC like something that the devs worked on after the fact, for example, the SOCOM: Confrontation Cold Front DLC.. added a bunch of new maps/weapons/attachments/camo/ect. That's real DLC.

 

[sub]

Well that's pretty ****ty. I was thinking more in terms of Oblivions Shivering Isle stuff, or even the ME3 DLC

 

[Grega]

I dont mid DLC as long as its Mass Effect 1 style that doesnt really impact the story.

But what they did with Assassins Creed 2 was just horrible.

They removed 2 chapters from the game and without the damn DLC you couldnt even get the 100% game complete. Because you could clearly see 2 chapters missing in the time line. they were grayed out and you went from chapter 12 to 15. Thats the DLC that rubs me the wrong way.

 

[IFlip92]

Console Gaming is going to Kill itself.....

Speaking of failed games. Ever notice that due to the digital era we live in more and more games are getting released unfinished and riddled with bugs because they can simply patch it up later.

Its absurd. If you release a game thats buggy beyond playable dont expect people to even look at it even after you release a patch.

^These.

When a game is not finished and out the doors, don't even think about DLC. I understand that companies are trying to make more profits easily by releasing DLC, but they're doing it wrong. First of all they are wrongly creating DLC before a game is even out, assuming that it will be popular. With game quality in massive decline, they should concentrate their efforts on making better games. DLC after...

PS: .....wait a second, that is exactly what is wrong with DLC right there, they are profit orientated without anything to show for usually. Can't say I blame them given @Subs figures. This would xplain the attempts to make DLC more important by making it a core part of the story. Unfortunately for them, gamers are a though crowd and are dismissing the idea.

Also there is an update to @Sub's link: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/202401/4-report-is-false-says-forbes-interviewee/
The figures are actually 20% not 4%. So 20% of finished games make a profit. But apparently only 20% of all games in development actually get finished. This makes more sense since roughly around 20% of games that come out are of decent/good quality. I wish they would match these figures to PC / Console sales.

 

[Grega]

Here is another issue im having with the gaming industry. Demos and presentations are missleading. But that goes for all commercialization. The difference here is that you can not get a refund for games anymore. So basically you are conned in to buying bad products with no option for a refund.

Im not saying reselling them games, but maybe have a system that if you are not happy with a game within the first week of the time you run it first, you can refund it for special credits, that could be used for discount buying of other games from the same distribution platform, in exchange for removing the bought game from your account.

We need a refund system or else the industry will continue to grow in the way of scaming people. Especially since most big review sites are baised.

 

[IFlip92]

I don't know what happened to PC demos, but I find them useful on the Xbox Market. I do agree a lot on the presentation front. CGIs should just be left for the player to xperience inside the game, not for advertising.

As for the refund system, I think it would be good if they would at least give you half of your money back, implying that it is your fault for not playing the demo before purchasing. This would be very beneficial for the devs as their efforts would not go to waste and the quality of demos would dramatically increase therefore allowing the buyer to decide wether the game is appealing to them or not.

And instead of having a "parasitic" used game market going on behind their backs, they could just make it a part of the respective company instead. For eg. Lets say you buy a game without knowing anything about it for 60$, assuming that a demo is available, you just haven't bothered to check it out. You open the seal therefore automatically devaluing it anyway, find out you don't like it, take it back and get 30$ refund and they would go on to sell it 2nd hand to someone for 30$. That way they still get a full 60$ either way for each copy, but used games aren't an issue any more and everyone is happy. Digital content would have to be fully refundable though obviously because its value can't be degraded.