On DLC

[christian]

How DLC Actually Helps Games - http://kotaku.com/how-dlc-actually-help ... 1686831595
[quote=""Ethan Levy"]
[Brad] Wardell and I agree that "for consumers, even though some companies have abused DLC, overall it's the best thing that has happened for game development." You may dislike the modern business practices around developing, promoting and selling DLC. However there are many undeniably positive benefits created by its popularity. By improving job security, keeping game teams together and reducing the amount of time, energy and money spent on hiring, DLC helps make your games better.
[/quote]

[christian]

Why Expansion Packs are Superior to DLC - http://www.learntocounter.com/why-expan ... or-to-dlc/

[D]ownloadable content would be the opposite of the expansion pack. The downloadable content model is not defined by its digital nature, or the size of the content package, but its philosophy. The downloadable content model is defined by a lack of aesthetic significance. Downloadable content implies a piecemeal process ... It promotes the creation of new content, but without the strong ability to centralize and integrate that content into the existing game systems. It has to become a supplement, rather than a mandatory part of the game experience.

...

If you want to make a video game, it comes down to this: Want to make the most money? Go with downloadable content. But if you want to make the best game? Go with the expansion pack. Make the best damn sequel you can.

Of course, anyone who's worked in game development can tell you how flawed this conclusion is. But never mind this cheap potshot. At least the article does a good job at cleanly distinguishing between DLC and expansion packs, and clarifying why the latter is superior from a gamer's perspective. It could be useful for someone who maybe doesn't like DLC but finds himself without a good answer when confronted with his fondness for expansion packs.

[christian]

https://sourcegaming.wordpress.com/2015 ... ers-happy/

These days, the “DLC scam” has become quite the epidemic, charging customers extra money to complete what was essentially an unfinished product. I completely understand how aggravated players must feel. After all, a game should be 100% done at the time of release, and I would be livid if it were split up and sold in pieces.

Why, then, do you think so many titles provide premium DLC on or shortly following a game’s release? It’s because that’s the easiest way to make money.

After all, if you wait too long after a game’s release to distribute additional content, players will already move on to the next title. Even long tail titles–that is, ones that perform consistently well over an extended period of time–make more money the earlier they come out.

The same goes for Sm4sh. We could have easily reserved a few characters on the current roster and later sold them as premium DLC. A considerable amount of work went into development, and the game would have already featured a ton of content. Plus, if you were looking to make a profit, DLC would be the way to go. Development is more costly than ever, yet the price of games has remained the same, so more income would help offset that imbalance.

This is translated from a Famitsu interview with Masahiro Sakurai. I don't entirely trust it, since it strikes me as entirely implausible that Sakurai would call it a "DLC scam". But nonetheless, he makes a good point about the increasing costs of development with the price of games remaining the same. And I love his conclusion.

Our team may have shrunk in size, but I’m still just as excited as ever to be pouring my heart and soul into my work every day. Given the different types of content we’re producing, it wouldn’t be surprising for the planning of one item to coincide with the development, balancing, and finalization of several others. We also have version updates, online features, and additional modes to worry about. It can be quite overwhelming, but it’s all about making players happy.

[christian]

http://kotaku.com/smash-bros-creator-on ... 1699908411

Brian Ashcraft's article translates Sakurai's phrase as "DLC business".

[christian]

Examining the game industry's love-hate relationship with DLC - http://gamasutra.com/view/news/261162/E ... th_DLC.php

“Generally, the conversation about DLC occurs well after the conversations about game content,” says Forrest Dowling. He worked on Bioshock: Infinite at Irrational Game, and Homefront under THQ, and is currently developing the independent title The Flame in the Flood.

“Typically, the lead time on content for the main game is months out for DLC content," he says. "While DLC conversations happen long before the main game is done, they tend to happen well after the doors have closed on additional content in the main game. I know there’s a sense that DLC must be cut content from the main game, but in my experience, the only time anything like that occurs is when the content had to be cut from the main game for scheduling reasons, but was at least partially done so there was a head start for DLC.”

"DLC is often much more content- than tech-driven, so it gives a company a way to justify keeping a lot of people employed even when they’re no longer needed on the main title,” he says. “Late in development and after the game ships, there’s often far more engineering work than content work to be done, so typically a big chunk of the art and design teams would end up doing QA, sitting on their hands, or getting laid off."

“This has a knock-on positive effect for players, in that it helps maintain team continuity, which leads to better games down the line," he adds. "I think another benefit for consumers is that in many cases, the post-release content can be some of the best in the game.

"Often full games have levels or systems that were built while the team learned how to best make content, and by the end they are saddled with various decisions that were too costly to change, but maybe weren’t the best for how the game ended up. Post-release content allows teams to fully leverage the knowledge they gained over the previous years they spend building the core game.”

“I think season passes are overall a net benefit for the industry.” Dowling sums up, “Even if sometimes the execution is hit or miss. Games continue to become more and more expensive, but the audience for big triple-A games doesn’t seem to be growing at the same rate as budgets. Season passes allow companies to offset the increased development cost somewhat by keeping the price of the core game at a more affordable level for people who are more price sensitive or don’t necessarily need every little bit of content a game has to offer. I suspect that season passes are a part of why we’re still able to buy games for $60 even when the budgets have skyrocketed over the last decade.”