Board 8 > Extra Credits make a pretty good case for Day 1 DLC

(+) Yeah! (+)

They also explain how it can be done poorly. Pretty interesting, I think!

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

--
"It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy...let's go exploring!" - Calvin
http://img.imgcake.com/calvinfinalpngpy.png

this show is great.

I wish I knew about thoughtful things like this from other disciplines.

--
"What if you just eat vegetarians?"-neonreaper
"^ You are what you eat. ^_~"-Koiji

So you're saying that sometimes it can be good
and sometimes it can be bad?

FASCINATING

--
_foolmo_
mobile computer

From: foolm0ron | #003
So you're saying that sometimes it can be good
and sometimes it can be bad?

FASCINATING

Did you watch it?

It's saying that people get angry about day one DLC for the wrong reasons. Companies make much much more money off DLC released in the first week than they do at any other time, because people forget about their games, or trade them in once they're done with them. It's not nearly as financially feasible to release DLC months after release. And since console games usually take three or four weeks to be certified, it provides developers with a job to do while they wait on that. It actually is additional content that wouldn't have appeared in the game otherwise, contrary to what people typically think about day one DLC.

--
"It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy...let's go exploring!" - Calvin
http://img.imgcake.com/calvinfinalpngpy.png

Funnily enough, fully 100% on disc DLC isn't covered by this, as it'd have to be made before going through the 8 week lull.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/Punny/FDpnggy.png

I still maintain that complaining about the action figures is stupid.

It's supposed to be an extra reward for fans, not someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to hand over more money. If you're not a big enough fan to want an action figure, then why the **** do you care about one gun? IIRC, it's not even a very good gun, although I tend to base my weapon loadout on how satisfying they feel to fire rather than actual combat effectiveness.

The problem with the gaming community is a massive sense of entitlement. Developers can't reward one set of fans without everyone else whining that they're being ripped off.

Heck, I'm amazed there isn't an uproar about how the Mass Effect series' ability to load and reference your old saves is a way of FORCING you to buy THREE WHOLE GAMES, not to mention ME2 DLC. It's SO UNFAIR that Kasumi won't show up just because you started with ME3 and so won't have any idea who she is. </sarcasm>

--
"My name is Ezio Auditore da Firenze, and like my father before me, I am an accountant"
Nothing is true. Everything is tax-deductible

That graph on rate of DLC purchases over time has me thinking - is there any similar data for Steam DLC purchases? Publishers trying to get as much money as possible in that first month is fine, but I suspect that if they had more control and were more flexible with their prices like they are on Steam, they'd see much higher returns after that opening month. So, instead of infuriating your fans over possibly-essential day 1 DLC, publishers could co-ordinate their sales and DLC releases in a way that's not as maniacal.

For example: Assassin's Creed games routinely drop in price around December/January. Knowing this, Ubisoft Montreal would announce in advance that a substantial piece of DLC is set to release on a certain day in January for, uh, $20. The day that DLC releases, Assassin's Creed also drops in price at retail. And just so early adopters aren't punished, all new copies of Assassin's Creed comes with a single use code that will give the customer a 50% or more discount on that future DLC and additional pre-order DLC. And everyone is happy, hopefully.

It's probably harder to coordinate that kind of thing without an all-digital platform, but hey, it might be worth a shot!

--
ICON:
the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops