Waiting for conclusion and coherence

[JSR]

As discussed in the thread about buying games at launch; games continue to get fragmented in order to maximize profit. While I don't necessarily think the prices asked for the given content are unfair - it varies greatly from game to game - I really dislike having a more or less incomplete game. When I start to play a new game, I need to know I have all the content needed to get a "full experience". Lately this has started be impossible in some games.

The Prince of Persia reboot (the colorful one) introduced a DLC pack cheekily called "Epilogue". They were essentially telling the gamers that they're missing the final piece of the game! Had it been a separate story not integral to the main story I wouldn't be so aggravated. But now it seems we have only gotten 90% of the game for our money. Another Ubisoft game, Assassins Creed 2, did something very similar. At some point in the game you skip past some sequences in the games' "mission list". This is actually addressed within in the game as some sort of malfunction. At the time I thought nothing of it, thinking it was intended for some purpose. But later, those missing sequences were available to buy. So you could pay extra money to fill in the missing pieces of your game. Cool...

Another game famous for its amount - and maybe even quality - of DLC is Mass Effect 2. I like the game, and would definitely want to play all the DLC. But while the original release has a self-contained story, I still have issues putting me off. In grand story driven games like these, I love to get sucked into its setting. This is best achieved when playing the game in the shortest window of time. If I spend some hours playing the game today, and continue playing it again four weeks later, I'm disconnected from the game world. Stepping into the shoes of Shepard when I don't remember what level and with what equipment I left him with is not the same thing. Therefore I really want all the game content available at the same time. Playing it in small bursts along the release of new DLC isn't really an option for me.

The latest example is Deus Ex. I have a high interest in this game as it looks very, very good. At the same time, it looks like the perfect candidate to get tons of DLC with varying degree of relevance to the main story. While I fully expect the game to have some sort of ending to most of it threads, I suspect the upcoming DLC to be very essential to the main story and the games universe. And like Mass Effect 2, I really want the entire experience in the same playthrough.

My solution? Waiting.

Again, this isn't about the price or the ethics around supporting the game publishers; it's about getting the complete game experience. And the only way to know I'm going to get it is by holding out and seeing what happens. Many great games like Batman Arkham Asylum never get any substantial story related DLC, but upon release, we have no way of knowing that. And while I fully expect Arkham City to get tons of substantial DLC (things have really changed these last two years), since that game isn't so reliant on story to be fun - as opposed to it's great core gameplay - I'll still pick it up on day one.

So I'm gonna make a list. A list of games I probably (willpower will diminish if exposed to awesome marketing shenanigans) won't buy before they seem more complete to me. A year after release seems to be a good time to buy, though the Platinum/Classics edition might be safer, I can't wait forever.

List in progress:
-Deus Ex Human Revolution
-Gears of War 3 (number 2 gave you all the extra maps, and two extra chapters for half the price around a year after release)
-Assassins Creed Revelations (fool me thrice, shame on me)
-Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (won't happen, I'll fold like a house of cards on day one...)

[toythatkills]

Did you play PoP or the Epilogue DLC?

PoP ends in a very satisfying way, and without the DLC I didn't feel hard done by at all. The DLC has a worse ending than the actual game does, ending on something of a cliffhanger. Either way, I didn't feel like I was getting 90% of a game. I got 100% of a game, and the epilogue upped it to 110%. It was an epilogue, not the final chapter.

[eastyy]

game of the year editions i waited for dragons age till it was released with all dlc...mate of mine did the same with borderlands

also did the same with fallout 3

[Kaido]

I felt like the fallout 3 dlc cheapened the original game, turning something of a dark and coherent story into a silly one. I'm not a fan of cash-in DLC at the best of times... I'm sure the "expansion pack" of years gone by was a better deal for gamers.
EA take the biscuit for cutting out segments of the original development and calling it dlc/first-owner-content though.

[EvilBoris]

The other option is for developers to not bother thinking making any kind of "additional" content, regardless of where it appears. Beginning,middle or end.

Content that you now view as being "cut out" is actually not made at all, because they feel that it will cost too much to make and they don't want to make gamers cry by charging them for it.

It seems like gamers are getting very greedy, feeling they are entitled to everything just because they have bought a game. This stuff costs money to produce, they can't always give it away.

Where do you draw the line?
Should Oblivion's Shimmering Isle pack of been included in the main game?

In fact, why bother making sequels, I'm sure you'd of rather waited an extra year and had Game X plus it's sequel all bundled into one game, for the same price, despite costing millions of pounds extra to create.

[JSR]

Seems you skipped some parts of my opening post, so I will quote myself.

While I don't necessarily think the prices asked for the given content are unfair - it varies greatly from game to game - I really dislike having a more or less incomplete game.

Again, this isn't about the price or the ethics around supporting the game publishers; it's about getting the complete game experience.

What I'm trying to say, is that I actually agree with you (though I hoped the opening post would've clarified that). But I feel I should have the option of playing the entire game, at the games' release date. If the developers want more money, fine. I would gladly pay twice the RRP for some of the games if it would include all the game content. The summary of my annoyance is that I don't want to be drip-fed the game over a long period of time.

[EvilBoris]

Everyone's definition of what a complete experience is going to be different.

My only real bugbear is that the DLC is often for story which has already passed in my eyes, because I've finished the game.
Twas a bit weird to go back in time in Mass Effect 1&2 and go and do extra missions and make my characters better for a fight I wasn't going to have again.

[Neon Ignition]

That's the main problem with DLC at the moment, most of the significant DLC available is for expansion to single player modes where it's largely inappropriate. Fun though it was when I went through ME2 again, none of the DLC is essential to experience of substansive enough to warrant the long wait and cost, in fact the entire game is largely an inappropriate platform for it. Assassins is a good example too as it's always annoying when the game jumps from Chapter 12 to 15 for obvious cash in reasons. Now it has a multiplayer mode the DLC should be focused on that instead of short changing the single player. This DLC also always seems to come out so long after the core game that 95% of players will have moved on which seems silly. Castlevania's DLC was daft as well, telling required story strands for the sequel long after players moved on and via a clunky method.

Hopefully, as the DLC fad settles, devs and publishers will learn how to best use it as it can be great when done right. We're still far from it though.

[toythatkills]

Here's some awesome single played DLC: Mirror's Edge.

Alex, if you'd genuinely be prepared to spend ?100 on a game day one just to have the DLC included, you're insane, and also probably the only person in the world that would be happy with that solution. Wait a year and you'll get the same package as a GOTY edition for ?20.

[Family Fry]

This DLC also always seems to come out so long after the core game that 95% of players will have moved on which seems silly.

A choice quote but a question worth asking, generally.
When exactly is the best time to bring out DLC?
Way I am seeing this, its damned if you do and damned if you don't. Bring it out weeks within release you end up looking like you have been keeping it from the disc, then again release it 6 months later and players may have just moved onto another game and not bother.

[Matt]

It's best to bring out a new map every other week after release and keep that up for a year. And not charge a penny.

Bad business? I don't think so. By showing long term commitment to your users, you'll encourage people to buy your title and stick with your title. The main reason I picked up Burnout Paradise, a good while after launch, was the continued support of free DLC.

Sure, augment things with paid DLC - skins, funky tea-bag animations, whatever you want. But fragmenting your market with paid DLC maps is stupid.

The road to success: Make a quality game; keep releasing maps and online modes for free to keep people playing; promise the same for the sequel; sell more as gamers flock to your title.

It's mega competitive out there in the online market. Second hand sales hurt really bad. Solution? Give players enough to keep them playing your title beyond the first couple of weeks [when another huge title is launched]. You WILL sell more long term, goodwill goes a long way, and those that do come onboard late in the game will buy a new version [I'm a fan of the Online Pass, believe it or not].

[EvilBoris]

But what do you do if that continued play for your title have dwindled so much that you are spending thousands on making DLC that isn't going to be enjoyed by enough people to make the investment worthwhile, I'm sure that is something that happens alot.

[Matt]

I believe if you keep your customers happy, you'll build loyalty and be rewarded accordingly. I've picked up, for example, cars in Burnout Paradise simply because I didn't mind chucking away a bit of money given what I'd got given for "free".

Oh, and make all DLC map packs compatible with the sequels. So in the latest CoD you'd be able to play all the map packs from previous titles. Better value, let the customer know this.

[toythatkills]

I believe if you keep your customers happy, you'll build loyalty and be rewarded accordingly. I've picked up, for example, cars in Burnout Paradise simply because I didn't mind chucking away a bit of money given what I'd got given for "free".

It's a lovely sentiment but history suggests you're in denial. CoD has an obscene amount of brand loyalty, and Acti can release maps whenever they want for whatever price they want. Gamers are fickle. Most of them don't care about what you care about (though it'd be a much better place if they did)

[koopatroopa90]

TTK have you purchased (with real money) any tower bucks in Tiny Tower? I haven't but have considered it as the game was free but would have been worth paying for.

Just interested as I know you liked the game and it would kind of be putting Matts idea to the test.