Who cares whether DLC is on the disc or technically all downloaded?
The latest mini-controversy over downloadable content involves "Resident Evil 5's" online"versus" mode. The actual amount of content downloaded for players' $5, 1.8 MB on 360 and 351 KB on PS3, is so small that it has many wondering if it's just a key to unlock content already on the disc.
Capcom's answer is that it's new code, though it does reuse assets on the disc.
But the real answer is: Who cares?
I mean, sure, we all want the best possible value for our $60. But game publishers don't owe us anything. If the DLC is already on the disc and unlockable via a code -- as happened with the costumes in "Street Fighter IV," for instance -- it just means it got made before the game was released and the publisher wants to avoid bandwidth costs to deliver it (especially if they have to pay Sony for that bandwidth).
Why is it less offensive if that content is finished a month or two later and delivered via download at the same price? There's no rational answer to that question, of course.
AsI've written before, DLC is a way for publishers to increase their margins and defray the high costs of development for the PS3 and 360 and their relatively small install base compared to the PS2,Xbox, and GameCube base last generation (the Wii, of course, requires separate development from 360 and PS3 and isn't too supportive of DLC).
It seems particularly fair in the case of online multiplayer. It's easy for those of who play games a lot and use Xbox Live or PSN to forget that millions of people own a 360 or PS3 and never connect it to the Internet. Why does Capcom, or any publisher, have to eat the cost of delivering all those potential customers a feature that they'll never use? At least if they're delivering a good enough value for the initial $60 (which, based on the game's 4 million initial shipments, many people seem to think Capcom is).
With DLC, publishers are extracting dollars out of the minority of a game's intial audience for whom more content is worth more money. That's capitalism and there's nothing wrong with it. It's called price discrimination -- trying to segment products as much as possible to get more money out of people willing to pay more. It's why you can buy half price tickets to a Broadway show if you're willing to wait on line the day of the performance and get the least desirable seats in the house.
If customers don't like the practice, they can and should complain about overall game costs. Or, better yet, just don't buy the DLC. But nitpicking about whether DLC is truly all downloaded avoids the real issue and displays a rather ridiculous attitude of entitlement that gamers need to lose.
Chris Morris reports on the business and culture of video games and offers analysis of recent events and industry trends.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Well, I think a lot of gamers do care. It does seem a bit "deceptive" on Capcom's part to say that your paying for new DLC, when really you're just getting a key to unlock what's already on the game you originally paid for. It might be better, or more honest at least, to say you're buying a key to unlock stuff.
Posted by: Tweak my PC | November 23, 2009 at 07:05 AM
Get affordable health insurance quotes and compare individual health insurance plans side by side. We'll help you find individual health insurance, family medical insurance or small business health insurance and the best medical insurance plans for your needs and budget.
Posted by: Cheap Health Insurance | October 24, 2009 at 01:34 AM
You know, when a gaming journalist says "who cares" it speaks a lot about how disconnected they have become with their readers (gamers).
First of all, gaming journos get paid for doing the whole gaming thing. They are required to own most game consoles. They are required to own an HDTV, otherwise, they cannot properly review games with HD capability. And the company that they work for, pays for all those expenses or makes it possible for their people to get free access to games and related products.
The problem comes into view when these journalist start to ASSUME that because they have access to all of that good stuff, that the same goes for every gamer out there.
So they no longer have the perspective of someone that has to make the decision of either buying a $60 game or paying some bills. With this freakin economy, where every single dollar spent counts. But a typical gaming journalist doesn't relate to that at all.
It's like Matt Casamassina from IGN saying that all games should be HD compatible because "everyone owns HDTV's". The reality is most gamers DO NOT OWN such TV's. CRT televisions still outsell HDTV's worldwide. But again, he doesn't relate to any of that because his gaming related job made it possible, nay, NECESSARY to own an HDTV.
For Fritz to say "who cares" about spending $5 bucks for DLC is more of the same attitude. He doesn't get it. Does not relate to how regular consumers feel. And how it could affect us in the long run.
Posted by: Ed | April 15, 2009 at 09:39 AM
This is not my Nintendo64. I expected this versus type of mode when I bought my $60 copy. It's an xbox360, and every other similar game comes with this type of mode. We expect it and deserve it.
Capcom did do something wrong. Thats why all the controversy. For those who feel cheated, I commend you: you have a true, intuitive moral compass and I can't wait to see how your children grow.
If Capcom still feels what they did is appropriate, then release the next DLC in a separate CD (for which I didnt pay) in a new box (for which I didnt pay) so I have to go to the store to purchase it.
And if they do that? People would see who they truly are: addholes for selling me a $60 product and then releasing a slight improvement (which should- yes, should- be in the original) days later. Even Apple waits a good amount of time before updating their ipods. I feel cheated.
But no. They lay it hidden in my purchase. They wanted to have and eat their cake. Not wanting to look like scoundrels selling a new CD days later, they imbed it in my CD. And thought that would confuse me.
Still not sure if they did something wrong? How about this: even if I never owned the DLC to begin with, it's just a sheety idea. Why didnt Capcom wait a few more days and release the whole thing altogether? And charge $70? Because then, everyone would more clearly see both an overpriced sheety game coming whats becoming a sheety company.
I wonder if the same people are on the Capcom board from when I was younger (when my dad purchased for me Mega Man and the original Bionic Commando)? I don't think so. The company has changed direction with this last trick.
I for one am going to protest by stealing 3 (three) copies of the new Bionic Commando. They owe me more than that. Im sure it wasnt the designers who came up with this stupid srategy, but the CEOs.
But in fact, a group of gamers/lawyers are trying to figure out if what they did was fraud, and if we really did deserve more. If not, it was just pretty lame, and we've had enough of lame CEOs decisions.
Posted by: Noah Hussain | April 14, 2009 at 07:05 AM
I realise this is further up in the forum and i skiped the rest after that but i like the matrix idea and to the guy that says it isnt cheaper in the uk its £5 cheaper than normal and then you pay £3 for the dlc so its not that bad really.
Posted by: Bruce | April 12, 2009 at 10:51 AM
When DLC is on the disc, it looks like the publisher is trying to gouge their fan base - trying to charge for something they already paid for since the DLC was developed with the game. When it comes out later, you think they spent extra time and money developing it, hence the supposed need to charge for it.
"If the DLC is already on the disc and unlockable via a code -- as happened with the costumes in "Street Fighter IV," for instance -- it just means it got made before the game was released and the publisher wants to avoid bandwidth costs to deliver it"
No, it does not mean the publisher wants to avoid bandwidth costs, it means they want more money out of you. Otherwise, they could just put the costume in the game. Costumes used to be free unlockables in previous console generations, why should we have to start paying for them now? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
"There's no rational answer to that question, of course."
How about the rational that we've been told for years the cost of games pay for the development of the game. Now it seems some publishers want to take elements developed at the same time, include it in the game we're paying for, but make us pay more to use it. Horse feathers.
"DLC is a way for publishers to increase their margins and defray the high costs of development for the PS3 and 360 and their relatively small install base compared to the PS2,Xbox, and GameCube base last generation"
Small install base? Maybe the PS3, but the 360 has beaten the original Xbox in lifetime sales, and the Wii has stomped the Gamecube's lifetime sales.
"But nitpicking about whether DLC is truly all downloaded avoids the real issue and displays a rather ridiculous attitude of entitlement that gamers need to lose"
You mean the attitude where developers like Valve and ID provided us with free DLC for over a decade on the PC because they wanted to reward their customers? Free maps, game play modes, etc., that not only keeps their customers happy, but creates a loyal fan base eager to purchase the next game they're working on? Is that truly ridiculous?
What I find more ridiculous is that Microsoft will brag that Halo 3 made over $170 Million in 24 hours and not want to reward their community for helping make it such a giant success. THAT is ridiculous.
Posted by: Mark | April 12, 2009 at 08:03 AM
Just so everyone knows, the Versus Mode was in the earlier copies of the Game Guide. Then it was taken out, which happens a lot. I worked on games for certain companies that included dlc that was just an unlock key. so what does that say about companies who know they can get some extra cash out of gamers if they just take it out and add it in later.
I like DLC, but if a big company like this chargers you for something that seemingly was already in the game, we can be going down a road that leads to more and more of this.
I do also agree that if people dont like whats going on then dont support the DLC. I have read many posts where people are saying, "i'll still get it but im not happy with it". These people are part of the problem.
I like what burnout is doing and i think they are the leaders in what DLC should be.
Main issue is what was Capcom marketing doing? The game is good but its already been out for awhile, with no Versus mode built in and only DLC how many games will you even be able to play? i'd the game would do better in the long run if A) the versus is good and B) its included with the game. I sure as hell wont pay for multiplayer unless its a CO-OP mode added in games that didnt have it (Call of Duty 4, Killzone 2).
Posted by: Herp | April 11, 2009 at 08:57 PM
I don't think your example of a Broadway show is a good one for talking about market segmentation. In that case, the seller is charging less for something that is genuinely, and unavoidably, of lower quality (i.e. worse seats).
The bad type of market segmentation, where rational behaviour leads to unfortunate results, is not that example, rather it occurs where a product is _deliberately_ made worse, quite unnecessarily, purely to achieve a segmentation effect.
A classic example would be a CPU manufacturer whose chip yields are _too good_ leading them to deliberately cripple good chips so they can sell them at a lower price to budget customers, while keeping high margins on the rest of their chips.
This makes perfect sense for the seller, but leads to the completely irrational result of value actively being destroyed (and everyone in general ending up worse off) just to make the marketing work.
Similar things happen when an airline has a budget subsidiary - they might go out of their way to make flying on that subsidiary more unpleasant than it needs to be, just to stop their wealthier customers from switching to it.
I think that sort of bad segmentation can only really occur where there isn't much competition.
In this case though I agree, if the game maker just wants to nickel-and-dime people into paying for a bit of the game at a time, it doesn't really matter whether its already on the disk or not. People are free to decide whether its worth it to them or not. Games are a more competitive market than CPU's or airlines, and there will presumably be competition from other companies who let you access the whole disk-worth of content without paying extra, if that's what you want.
Posted by: pm | April 11, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Chimera,
That analogy does work better, but that guy sure looks like more of an ass when you find out he purposely broke the speedometer before selling you the car at full price, just so he could offer to charge you extra to fix it.
Posted by: Jon Blaze | April 11, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Brian,
You didn't pay for versus mode. Here let me fix your analogy. You bought a car KNOWING the speedometer didn't work, and then later asked the person who sold you the car to fix it for free....Would he have any obligation to fix it for you? No he wouldn't, because you KNEW it didn't work. You BOUGHT Resident Evil 5 KNOWING that a versus mode WAS NOT INCLUDED. There is no logical reason as to why Capcom should have to provide you something that was never advertised as part of the game you paid for.
Posted by: Chimera | April 11, 2009 at 01:25 PM
Chimera,
We are talking about making something, selling it, then charging extra to access what you already bought. That's why the movie theater analogy works, at least for me. Maybe you would prefer a car analogy where you buy the car but later pay extra to have a speedometer be readable. The speedometer is there the whole time, but just obscured. Which ever analog you choose, I don't like either of them.
Ryan,
I haven't paid $50 for a game since 2007 and over $30 in the last year and a half. I did go crazy a couple of weeks ago and bought EWJ1&2, two Oddworld games and Giants - Citizen Kabuto for $18.
Don't forget what happens when you assume things.
Posted by: Brian Woods | April 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Alex, not to be a turd or anything, but if you're super broke making $12/hr... shouldn't you be investing your money in places other than $60 video games?
Posted by: Ryan | April 11, 2009 at 10:35 AM
This controversy is laughable. No one expected this mode to be in Resident Evil 5. Not one person. It has never been in a Resident Evil game before. I love how people make asinine comparisons to things like a theater charging you to see the end of a movie. That comparison doesn't make sense. YOU SEE THE ENDING OF RE 5 without having to buy this content. You get everything you were advertised to be buying without paying for the DLC. There is nothing in this DLC that you should have expected from buying the game because it was not labeled to have it. If you went to the theater could they charge you extra to watch the movie in 3D? Yes they can. Could they charge you to watch a movie with an alternate ending? Yes they can. Did anyone think that they should see the two Matrix sequels or Pirates of the Caribbean sequels for free since they were, technically, filmed as one movie? No. Why? Because that's stupid, and so is the extremely stupid criticisms from people about the DLC. If you don't want to pay for it, then simply don't. It's not a conspiracy and Capcom doesn't owe you this content for free. Stop whining.
Posted by: Chimera | April 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I don't think the problem is with unlocking 'bonus' content that is on the disc - it's that more and more I seem to see games stripping features that should be there in the first place..
Again, downloading stuff to customise your game would be fine - if the boxed game was made cheaper for it. But its not! So now consumers are in the unenviable position of buying a game for full price which has been slimmed down to be sold at extra cost piecemeal down the line..
Posted by: Alex | April 11, 2009 at 01:46 AM
Anon,
Up until now, we have assumed we would get the whole game when we paid for it too. The theater chain I worked at (at the time, the largest on the planet)only gave refunds during the first half of the movie, so carrying this line of thinking carries over very easily. The theater also rarely gave out refunds, preferring to give people emergency passes.
Even before the crisis, with a four year degree, multiple awards won and eight years of experience, all I could find was a $12/hr job. Maybe for someone more affluent, being nickle and dimed doesn't matter, but for others of us, we know if we don't express our unhappiness, then we are approving by our silence.
Posted by: Brian Woods | April 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I agree with Ben. Who really cares whether the content was on the disk, developed before, during or after the game was published? The fact of the matter is, nobody bought Resident Evil 5 for the versus mode. It was not in the manual, in the game or on the box. There's no expectation of that content so you cannot then cry later when that content is somehow available.
The fact that you need to go online, pay money and download "something" to activate this mode already proves that not everything came on the disk. Using the movie theater analogy is inaccurate in that everybody expects a theater to show the entire movie. If a theater did not show you the whole movie, you can complain and get your money back. Versus mode is not an expectation for a Resident Evil game.
People will ask where will this end for publishers and I ask when will gamers stop complaining? You can argue that the RE5 disks contains all the assets required for a zombie dance game, where is this zombie dance mode? Or a zombie safari game where you drive the jeep. Where's that Capcom? Without Capcom giving you the programming required for these modes, you can't do squat with those assets, and it's the same with this versus mode.
And what's the issue with the timing here? Most of the people who picked up Resi 5 probably finished the game by now. A new mode would be welcomed at this time. As always, if you don't want it, don't buy it. yes, it really is that easy!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Yeah, I think you're looking at this as a journalist trying to detect a trend and not as a consumer.
Any publisher would love to make 70 or 80 dollars instead of 60, right? So, with DLC that's ready at the time of ship it starts to look like they are stripping things out of the game to charge a little more for it.
I take your point about some users not using some features -but some people don't like 2 player, or only want to use one of the weapons... Or only play the first two levels of a game. I think this is a weak argument to charge more for everything else.
The market will decide -I suppose, but it's a little lame to incentivise publishers to look for these kinds of opportunities.
Posted by: Some dev... | April 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM
All the comments here are great and raise good points.
I'll sum it up. who cares? the gamers do! Ben Fritz you're an idiot.
Posted by: wow | April 10, 2009 at 03:06 AM
They make whole movies at a time. How about struggling movie theaters charging extra if you want to see the end, otherwise they stop the projector 10 minutes before the credits roll?
It could work for the music industry, too. Two cds sold two weeks apart. The first has all the songs, but needs a code from the second cd to play more than 1:30 of the song.
It would be an awesome world in which to live!
Posted by: Brian Woods | April 09, 2009 at 09:30 PM
I agree with those who are against this kind of DLC, whether or not it happens to be a fun way to make money off an unlock code. Developers need to find creative ways to add value to their games or reduce the cost required to make them, because this reliance on premium DLC is embarrassing.
Posted by: Variable Gear | April 09, 2009 at 09:17 PM
"Why is it less offensive if that content is finished a month or two later and delivered via download at the same price? There's no rational answer to that question, of course."
No, there is a rational answer. They sell me a game with a given amount of content on it. I buy it based on that amount of content, the quality of that content and the price for that content. As soon I a buy it, I own it.
I come back home. Later, I find out that:
a) They lied to me about the content of the disk.
b) I own something that I can't use without paying more money, which is a breach of contract. I paid for the disk and the content on it, I should be able to access everything that's on it.
Posted by: Kifimbo | April 09, 2009 at 03:05 PM
It's that attitude that's going to get you reamed in the future. It starts of now as a costume (that IS already on the disc) and a mode here or there, but where does it end? Paying for half of the game up front and paying an additional fee for "episodes" that were already on the disc to begin with?
What if you end up playing through a game only to find a cliffhanger of an ending, only to find out that you have to pay $9.99 to see the rest? What if you knew that was on the disc already but you couldn't access it without the code. Surely it's ok right, because publishers don't owe us anything.
That statement in itself is bull, they owe us everything on that disc when it leaves the factory as they're not giving these games away for free. They're providing us with entertainment and we're paying a premium, it's a symbiotic relationship. Hell we as consumers could say we don't owe them anything and we don't, but who'll survive that war when people start speaking with their wallets?
DLC when done correctly is fantastic, it does increase the longevity of a game. Criterion's work with Burnout Paradise should be the shining example with which everyone in the industry consults. Burnout Paradise now isn't the same as it was when the game shipped and most of their updates were free.
I'm not saying they shouldn't charge because when it's worth it, it's worth it. But when you start these duplicitous acts of locking things already on the disc that you technically paid for already, then we're treading on dangerous ground.
RE5's case is a bit murky because they did say they were charging due to the extra development of throwing a competitive MP mode into the game. I don't exactly see why you need to play competitive in RE to begin with but ok, go for it.
Also I heard there was a substantially larger patch before the DLC was available, which could have just been a trojan horse for the DLC itself. As I don't have the game I can't confirm this but it wouldn't be the first time a developer hides DLC in a patch so I'll give them that. But I DO have SFIV (on both systems) and when you charge for things like alt costumes that are already on the disc and would NORMALLY be an unlockable, yeah I care. I care a lot.
Posted by: Jae | April 09, 2009 at 02:34 PM
In the case of RE5, I think the complaining is very much a mountain from a molehill. But in general, I'm a little worried about this trend. Where's the line between adding new features as DLC and withholding features just to make more from faux "DLC?"
There was some racing game (I forget which one) where you could pay something like $10 for "DLC" that unlocked all the content in the game that would normally be unlocked through completing races and the like. DLC is not about selling customers the same content again and, to me, that's exactly what that racing game's "DLC" is doing. The more rational folks complaining about RE5's DLC might not be worried about that necessarily, but worried about more situations like this.
Posted by: Nels Anderson | April 09, 2009 at 02:04 PM
My issue with it would be that as the content was developed before the games release and during the main development cycle, and was indeed on the disk that you paid $60 for, then surely its not fair that you have to pay for it twice.
When its developed afterwards, you pay for the DLC because they have had developers working on it after the main product.
In the case of Resi 5, its sitting on both sides of the line. Most of the assets are on the disk, and thats fair enough, as they dont need to add more assets for DM. As for the fact that the 2mb of code was produced after the game was released, then I have to ask was it delayed so that it could be DLC or because they wanted to do it right, and didn't have time?
As far as I am concerned, Capcom can feel free to charge what they want for DLC, but I do question their motives of releasing the DLC so soon afterwards, without any extra assets. It smells slightly of trying to get people to pay for what is essentially a little bit of netcode. (Remember because of Co-op, most of the net code is there already.)
Posted by: Zalifer | April 09, 2009 at 01:57 PM