Dear Firaxis, I don't like DLC

[Greasy Dave]

Dear Firaxis Devs, I know you sometimes come on here and read the threads, please tell your marketing department, I don't like DLC.

I know this is already an old issue. I know there are other threads about this in other parts of the forum. But everyday I look at that pre-order offer, with pre-order DLC my heart sinks.

A while back, when Civ V vanilla was released, there was DLC and at that time there was good deal of negative feedback about it. I'm fairly certain...but only fairly, that during the build up and marketing of G and K and BNW I heard either Dennis Shirk or his colleague in an interview commenting that Firaxis had listened to the negative feedback about the vanilla DLC content and decided to make no further DLC releases and instead release further content in expansion packs.

(This might have been Gupta talking about X-com Within TBH, my memory is vague).

As someone who dislikes DLC, but who is a fan of Firaxis games I felt very positive towards the company.

I don't anymore.

There are many reasons why I don't like DLC. I'll try to outline the main one.

It's a simple concept - the concept of value for money. Living in the EU (none Euro zone) I'm already obliged to pay 20 percent more for my game than people living in the US due to your game publisher's pricing policy. (Let's not get stuck in a steam dispute - but I can assure those who are unaware of this issue, it's nothing to do with EU sales Taxes). Now the fact that my game is 20 percent more expensive than a US citizens, when it's an identical digital download, paid for on the same server in the Cayman islands or whereever 2K/ Steam processes it's transactions, the fact I'm blocked from buying my game using a US IP address by region locking, makes me very frustrated. The fact that I'm expected to pay extra money on top of that 20 percent price hike for content which I personally feel should be in the game to begin with seems to me to be just wrong.

I understand the argument made by supporters of DLC that if you buy a car you can pay extra for extra items. This is true. But there's two problems with this. The car industry is highly competitive - if I don't like the offer one company is making I can look elsewhere. The games industry is highly monopolistic -especially the distribution system. I have no choice about the price I buy the game for. Secondly, a car is not a game. Can you imagine if you bought a game of Monopoly and were expected to pay extra to get the squares of Mayfair, Pall Mall, Old Kent Road etc unlocked?

Now, I'm no naive idealist. I recognize I am at the mercy of 2K's or Firaxis's sales and marketing department. Ultimately, if I want to play the game, I have to accept the conditions that they set when they sell it to me.

But actually, there is a reason why the sales department should take note of those of us who dislike DLC - and that's secondary sales. In the civ market I am a captive audience. I have all the civ games and I will probably continue to buy them.

However, dear marketing people, Civ is not the only franchise that Firaxis sells and the less happy I am about the value of the civ products you sell to me, the less likely I am to buy your other products. I bought for example Ace Patrol. I wouldn't buy that today - because I'm not happy about your current marketing strategy. I bought Xcom Unknown on spec. I enjoyed it very much. But next time you launch a new title, I'm more likely to wait for the deep discounts.

Treat me fairly and with respect, and I will be your loyal customer. Try to sell me what I feel is a rip off and I won't. It's your sales peoples choice. Please ask them to listen.

Feel free to add your support for DLC or dislike of DLC in posts below. But let's try to respect each others views and not have this turn into a fight. I recognise that there are others who disagree with me. -and that's everyone's right.

(I don't have a twitter account - and I don't want one but I'm half torn about actually starting one and trying to tweet this towards the Firaxis devs. If anyone who does have a twitter account and feels as strongly as do in their dislike of DLC wants to tweet it to Pete etc, please go ahead.)

 

[JokerJace]

My problem with DLC and especially with day 1 DLC is that you can't help the feeling that you are being punished for not preordering, instead the official intention, being rewarded for preordering. That feeling is amplified by the fact that the additional content usually seems like something that's been there in the first place and is now excluded for marketing purposes. I also feel ripped of by this.

But I think the problem is on the customer side. We might be very vocal about our opinions, but the majority doesn't care. Who's buying video games mostly? Kids that don't think about these kinds of things and are just ultra hyped about their new game. And the adult customers usually have enough money and value their time too important than to complain about 'minor details'. We are just too inconsistent and don't care enough to be considered by the publisher. It's almost impossible to build a united front against such policies. There would be too many scabs...

 

[cakes]

the problem is with your interpretation that dlc should be included in the game just because it was produced at the same time as the game or has even been installed to the same folders as the game before purchase. if suddenly there was an end to dlc, it doesn't mean the content would instead be released with the base game on day one

 

[Darsnan]

the problem is with your interpretation that dlc should be included in the game just because it was produced at the same time as the game or has even been installed to the same folders as the game before purchase. if suddenly there was an end to dlc, it doesn't mean the content would instead be released with the base game on day one

This is true, but not always. Spore was released as a stripped down version, with the intent to milk its audience with DLC generated from the original content which was stripped out. of the initial release Also, XCOM was designed such that you couldn't generate your own maps. Additional maps were then sold as DLC. I think these are good examples of what he is talking about.


D

 

[JokerJace]

That's why I was talking about how it "seems". From an economic perspective it's easier to exclude than to include. That's the whole reason for the existence of different consoles in the first place. I know from friends - that are game developers - and from public statements of ex employees of different companies, that you don't think about DLC unitl the final stages of developement. And that's not the time when you integrate new features. You spend that time with testing and evaluating your software. So the only way to get your day one DLC is to exclude something.

Of course I can't proof anything. BUT I can't see why I would give them the benefit of the doubt when that contradicts economical reasoning, software developement reality and officially undisputed common practices. And besides, cakes, I can't see how defending day 1 DLC is in your best interest.

PS: in fact it is not even the developers who decide what day 1 DLC there is going to be. It's usually the publisher / marketing department. i.e. the guys that aren't responsible for the contents of the game. So how does that work without exclusion?!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I used to hate DLC, but I actually liked the DLC for Civ V.

Also, if you read up on industry practices, you will find that DLC has its own budget and timeframe. So it doesn't actually take away from the base game even if it is day 1.

 

[JokerJace]

you will find that DLC has its own budget

That is not true for day 1 dlc. I guess we will have to start quoting now.

 

[GeorgePatton]

I have no problem with DLC. Would you rather pay 80 for the base game plus all the extra content? And don't say ita owed to you to begin with.

 

[Matthew.]

DLC is obviously here to stay, but the good news is across the industry it seems to be moving in a better direction. The ones pushing DLC seem to realize that "pay to win" DLC is a complete no-go. Also a general idea of what works for DLC and what doesn't.

Personally I prefer full on expansions. My main issue with DLC (and likely the reason DLC is a "thing") is because it muddles value. It is like those stupid K-cup coffee things where all was done was repacked the coffee, hyped up the "convenience" factor, and that now justifies selling the same product at 4 times the cost.

We can use Civ 5 as an exact example of that. A full on expansion with a couple new game systems and 8 + 1 Civs for 30 dollars. Or a single Civ or duo pack for, what was it? Like 5 dollars or something ridiculous. It is simply a trick by marketing, just repackaging the same content and changing the price.

I'm on board with the OP in that if you give me quality content and treat me with respect, I will gladly shell out money product after product.

 

[WhiteKnight0311]

My problem with DLC and especially with day 1 DLC is that you can't help the feeling that you are being punished for not preordering, instead the official intention, being rewarded for preordering.

It's not a reward, it should be, but it isn't.
Pre-order DLC is just to entice you to pre-order to increase their pre-order sales.

Everyone else will just buy it later when it suits them, the DLC parks are not expensive. So why you feel 'punished' is something I don't really grasp, if there were specific online modes, or features you could only get via-pre order and no other means post-release then I could understand feeling punished, but I don't think any company would find it profitiable to punish people who dont pre-order.

 

[Olodune]

The main problem I have with DLC is that it makes save-sharing so difficult. I would much prefer a model where anyone can load a map with any DLC but you are required to "own" a DLC license if you want to roll your own map.

 

[werothegreat]

I'm fine with DLC as long as it's well done, reasonably priced, and not only available via preorder. In fact, I'd love some more DLC civilizations for Civ V.

 

[m15a]

Has DLC other than the pre-order incentive been announced? I haven't been following everything since I'm not pre-ordering, but I thought the situation right now is that there is not DLC that you need to pay for. Paying extra sounds like the complaint in the OP - is that a preemptive voicing of concern?

 

[Lord Shadow]

I think the OP is complaining before the actual problem surfaces. It's been a while since Firaxis moved away from the micro-DLC standard to favour traditional, full-sized expansions (Greasy Dave pointed it out himself). Is Beyond Earth's Exoplanet Pack a sign of the former's return? It's too early to tell, and frankly, I doubt it. It's a tiny, largely unimportant incentive for preorders. Callous would've been offering an extra faction instead.

Overall, I don't mind sparse, minor DLCs, which I can ultimately get for peanuts when a high discount comes around. My problem is with developers who shotgun a dozen 'minor" DLCs at launch, or attach non-trivial features to small yet overpriced packages. Paradox Interactive, for instance, is a bit suspect in that regard. But Firaxis hasn't really resorted to that since the early days of Civ5. They did dabble in it still around the release of XCOM:EU, but then the practice seemed to be axed.

 

[Onemorecivfan]

I think the OP is complaining before the actual problem surfaces. It's been a while since Firaxis moved away from the micro-DLC standard to favour traditional, full-sized expansions (Greasy Dave pointed it out himself). Is Beyond Earth's Exoplanet Pack a sign of the former's return? It's too early to tell, and frankly, I doubt it. It's a tiny, largely unimportant incentive for preorders. Callous would've been offering an extra faction instead.

Overall, I don't mind sparse, minor DLCs, which I can ultimately get for peanuts when a high discount comes around. My problem is with developers who shotgun a dozen 'minor" DLCs at launch, or attach non-trivial features to small yet overpriced packages. Paradox Interactive, for instance, is a bit suspect in that regard. But Firaxis hasn't really resorted to that since the early days of Civ5. They did dabble in it still around the release of XCOM:EU, but then the practice seemed to be axed.

They've pretty much said DLC is going to be restricted to maps so no worries about Civs or game modes,if they stick by that I mean.

 

[Lucius_]

I also use to hate DLC, but that stemmed from pricing. Now I understand development better and many publishers have gotten DLC pricing in check, along with Steam sales, I'm more comfortable with it. I'm still not fond of day 1 DLC, but I understand preorder incentives. If you miss out, you can always buy the map pack or extras later on sale for $1.25. So for me, it comes down to value. Are these extras worth $5 or should I wait for a sale on it next month?

 

[Lord Shadow]

They've pretty much said DLC is going to be restricted to maps so no worries about Civs or game modes,if they stick by that I mean.

That's certainly good to hear.

 

[m15a]

In that case, yeah, the current plan of only releasing map DLC and not civ or gameplay DLC is fine with me. I actually ended up buying the Scrambled Continents and Nations when I could get it a little cheaper, but I wasn't too bothered about not owning it before I did.

It sounds like Firaxis is still being attentive to the feelings of most customers' concerns about DLC. Obviously, some people are going to be disappointed, but I don't feel like Firaxis is being inconsiderate or going back on their word.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

That is not true for day 1 dlc. I guess we will have to start quoting now.

For your perusal:

Askagamedev.tumblr.com/search/dlc

 

[AriochIV]

I have no problem with downloadable content as long as a) it isn't stripped out of what should obviously been the core game, and b) the pricing structure is reasonable. The pricing for individual civilizations DLC's for Civ V was utterly ridiculous. If individual civilizations were really that expensive to produce, then the core game would have cost several hundred dollars.