DLC the way of the future?

Published on 21-07-10 at 11:37 AM AEST by

Jay

If you've ever felt that game you bought recently felt unfinished, 'then there's probably some basis to those thoughts. It seems that might be the trend for games to come. Comments from both Codemasters and Namco Bandai in recent weeks point to the companies looking to sell 'incomplete' games with consumers then having to purchase additional content and/or monthly fees.

Supposedly this might be an alternative to DRM heavy tactics like Ubisoft's bullet-in-foot strategy. Namco Bandai having previously posted losses of $350M (USD) and then cutting around 10% of their workforce, little wonder they're fishing around for some new strategies.

In contrast, last year Activision CEO Bobby Kotick said that they'd be looking to charge more for their games in future. Might be worth noting that Starcraft 2 having cost $100 Million to make, is about the same price as Avatar if you only watched the really good bits (rumoured to be $237M).

Tags:

4 Comments

rec - 21-07-10, 12:37 PM

This "unfinished game" suggestion falls in line with remarks just weeks ago from EA suggesting that they may charge for "long demos" in the future. I assume this means you'll pay an additional amount for the game in full.

I've really not been happy with current DLC trends - it's almost always bad value for money. While this "unfinished game" path isn't one I'd necessarily like followed, I guess essentially it's not so different from various lines of episodic games we've seen lately.

I'd much prefer that than pay-to-play schemes like the Call of Duty rumors that are bouncing around at the moment.

Joshuayu101 - 21-07-10, 12:41 PM

As long as theres a market for DLC it will just keep getting bigger and bigger.

Joshuayu101 - 21-07-10, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by rec

This "unfinished game" suggestion falls in line with remarks just weeks ago from EA suggesting that they may charge for "long demos" in the future. I assume this means you'll pay an additional amount for the game in full.

I've really not been happy with current DLC trends - it's almost always bad value for money. While this "unfinished game" path isn't one I'd necessarily like followed, I guess essentially it's not so different from various lines of episodic games we've seen lately.

I'd much prefer that than pay-to-play schemes like the Call of Duty rumors that are bouncing around at the moment.

The stupid thing about the prices is that its not all the developers doing. The console makers have restrictions on what is classed DLC and updates. For example microsoft has a ploicy of if a certain update is over a specific size its classfield as DLC and will need to be paid by the consumer because of the bandwidth and hosting of the DLC/update.

rec - 24-07-10, 10:30 AM

Turns out the Wall Street Journal was wrong. It was the development and upkeep of WoW that cost 100 million, not StarCraft II: Corrections and Amplifications - WSJ.com