Sounds like a move forward for the company. However, I have doubts that this is any indication that there will be US$1-3 games on the 3DS and Wii U.


Unless there are already some on the 3DS and Wii and I have just missed them. I haven't been keeping up with prices on the eShop.

The option should be there for 3rd parties. I don't know if I want to see Nintendo engaging in that, because I see it as a unscrupulous business practice and I would rather not have Nintendo involved in it, but we all know EA and companies like that are going to do it regardless of whether Nintendo approves of it or not, so the option might as well be there I guess.

Micro transactions? *ick!*

We as consumers should fight against the nickle and diming of gamers, and not buy any of this crap.  Ohh, $10 of real money to buy fake money in an imaginary world.  The only people I wanna slap across the face more than the developers are the people who buy this crap

Are you against DLC in general? Because DLC can be good. Look at games like GTA or Mass Effect, which had hours of new content added through DLC.

I'm okay with substantial DLC that's reasonably priced. I don't like 50 cents for a new hat for 99 cents for a piece of armor and things like that. Stuff like that should be bundled in with the big DLC, or just provided for free, or not at all.

DLC has a bad history and I seriously doubt that Nintendo can turn this around anytime soon. Micro-transactions are worse by definition since they exist to nickel and dime.

I have rarely brought DLC and have never felt completely satisfied with my purchase. It just has a very poor connection between value and price. Not to mention there is potentially no end to the amount of DLC which just messes with that connection even more. At least with full on expansion packs, you know this is it and at most if it was really, really popular, they might do one more.

In one extreme you have Railworks which has a combine total of $1659.12 USD for all DLC and it's not going to stop at anytime soon.

The best use of DLC I have seen is from Valve who charges nothing for new content and it makes for an extremely good incentive not to pirate, even if you have to wait for one of their crazy deals to buy the game.

Non-free DLC will continue to turn me off certain games due to their structural dependence on them.

I hate paid DLC. No matter how micro.

I'm not even crazy about free DLC unless that data will be guaranteed readable by every device that can play its games.

In other words, my PS1 stopped working, but I have a PS2 which can play its games and read its memory cards.  But imagine if current practices were applied to that model and Vincent from FF7 was a "free DLC" saved to the PS1's internal memory ... now I still paid full price to own FF7... but my access to Vincent becomes an expired rental.

Not free.

Not cool.

The problem is also that you can never actually tell if the DLC is "real" or not. Is it already on the disc/file/cart but just locked with a code? Was it going to be in the game originally, but removed to sell later as DLC? Is it just using the exact same assets, just slightly remixed? (cough Dead Space 2)

Few things have made me as disgusted at the game industry as when I rented LA Noire (right when it came out) and looked through the achievements and noticed that there were already several built in for the DLC, specific titles and everything.

Actually you can tell by how much data you have to download/how much space it takes on the hard drive. Simple!

Reading over this, a couple questions and observations popped into my head...

Was Microsoft looking at dumping their ms points system for straight money transactions, or was that a rumor? Which makes more sense for a company like Nintendo? I can see pros and cons for both...

According to Capcom smart guy Christian Svensson, games sell more if DLC is announced for them before they come out. I see some (sometimes justified) hate on DLC on this forum and elsewhere, but I guess it's cool with gamers at large that vote with their wallets.

I've never purchased DLC. I don't mind it existing for the most part. The closest I got to buying DLC was for the 2 extra scenarios in Castlevania: Lords of Shadow. I decided to pass and just read the spoilers on Wikipedia. Those were optional levels that didn't effect the retail game. The DLC content fleshed out the ending but wasn't necessary. It totally depends on the content being reserved for DLC. Prince of Persia 2008 withheld the ending of the game. Certain fighting games have withheld entire characters. That's crossing the line. Of course, those are things people will most likely pay for. However, it's kind of sleazy. I don't want to buy Smash Bros. 4 and have to pay extra for Link though I would be willing to pay extra for an HD Retro Stage Pack featuring remade stages from the 1st three games.

To be fair, I don't think the developer intends every person person to buy all the trains and scenarios; only the ones they like. Then again, I don't know how a train enthusiast would approach Railworks.

I can't stand micro-transactions.  In fact I could see its widespread adoption turning me off of current games completely.  This last gen being the first with DLC and downloadable titles has made me appreciate my older "put the game in and it works" systems all the more.

Still Nintendo has to include it as an option because that's what third parties want.

In theory there is the idea that "if you don't want it, don't buy it" but the problem is that idiots can ruin things for everyone.  I can decide not to buy this crap but if I'm playing Zelda and I encounter some guy saying "Pay $9.99 to access this sub-quest" the game is ruined for me.  I don't have to pay but the sheer presence of that in my videogame ruins it for me.  That would cross the line.  It would be like Link drinking a Pepsi in a cutscene.

Sure, you can see how big the file is, but it could just be an inflated key. Or in the case of Mega Man 9, everything is so small as to be inscrutable. I'm all for this assuredly futile congressional investigation: http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2011/09/19/the-microtransaction-investigation/

Whoops, wrong article. But I swear I read something a while back about Congress looking into the business practices of DLC.

I've never heard of a game company doing this. Got any examples?

I'm still surprised at the number of people who actually care if the DLC is physically on the disc or not.  Like, this particular horse armor isn't worth $2 because it's already on the disc, but if I have to actually download it from their servers, well it's totally worth $2 then...

Personally - I've never paid for DLC - and as a Nintendo-only gamer I've never had much of a chance - but if I feel the value of the addition to the game play is worth the cost, then I'll get it.  If not, well, it's no different than THQ charging $30 for some licensed crap game... I just ignore it and move on.

I see content on the disc, created as part of the normal development cycle, as content withheld and up for ransom, rather than "extra" content that supports a game after release. While it might not actually be the case all the time (like if extra budget above and beyond the regular game budget is alloted for DLC or whatever), that's my perception as a consumer. It feels bad, man.

If a game company wants to extend a game I like after the regular development cycle is over, though, I'm totally down with that.

This scenario goes both ways, though.  What if Vincent was a character that was cut from Final Fantasy 7 due to lack of time and resources?  That's an entire character and story you would never have seen.  Or how about the two missing dungeons from Wind Waker, which Nintendo cut because they wanted to rush the game out the door to meet its release date?  With DLC, though, that content doesn't have to remain on the proverbial cutting room floor.  Content we otherwise wouldn't have had now becomes available to us for a small additional cost.  I'd rather have the option to pay to see that content than to see potentially worthwhile content get cut for budgetary reasons.  I love Single-Player DLC that gives me more of a game I really enjoyed.

The problem with DLC is that some companies really use it well with hours of additional content that only enhances the original experience (Bioware, Bethesda), but others abuse it with cheap unlocks and what at one time would have been cheat codes or easter eggs (Electronic Arts, Capcom).  It's up to the consumer, though, to keep these companies honest on such matters, and the consumers have been negligent in that duty so far.

Since the content is already on the disc, technically it has already been paid for. Things that previously came with a video game in the past now require a fee. I can see both sides of it. People want to feel like they're not double dipping by just unlocking something on a disc they already own. It makes sense. At the same time, if one is willing to pay for a microtransaction in the first place, it shouldn't matter, especially since it's easier and faster to download a line of code.

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't believe this is actually the case. Counterpoint: remember the old id software Quake 1 demo CD that actually had the entire id game collection up to that point on it? Unlockable by ordering codes over the phone. I wouldn't feel entitled to all that just for paying less than 10 dollars.

As an aside, that distribution plan ended hilariously badly

This, of course, doesn't acknowledge the fact that development costs have skyrocketed in today's world.  Check out the end credits to the original Zelda, then, check out the end credits to Skyward Sword.  Heck, you could probably beat the original Zelda in the time it takes for Skyward Sword's credits to roll. ;)

Meanwhile, both games cost the same (actually, since some NES games ran $60, you might even have an argument that games are *cheaper* now... even more so if you factor in inflation).

So... the cost to create the product is much, much more and the cost to the consumer is flat (or even decreased)... of course stuff is going to either have to be cut out of the game or sold by itself (or we can get a rush of in-game advertising)...

DLC is not really any different than old PC game expansion packs only we now have that for consoles.  What made an expansion pack work is the feeling that it was extra content made after the game was released.  You didn't encounter closed off areas that would be available in the expansion pack (you did in Shareware games but that's different).  They didn't take something that was a code or an unlockable and hide it behind a fee.  At least I never encountered this in my experience playing PC games.

DLC should work like that.  It should be additional content released later on, a stop gap between a full-on sequel.  There are games where the DLC is available on DAY ONE.  That's just nickle and dime bullshit.  That's like if Super Mario World made you pay extra to play as Luigi.  If you can have it ready to be on the disc it should be in the game, period.  No one made us pay to unlock part of the game prior to this gen so why is that now okay?  In that sense I share the same feelings as Ty in regards to stuff that is included on the disc.  They're just hiding it away as a cash grab.  It isn't a service to the customer, it's a tax.  Releasing some DLC expansion pack later on however is more like a service.  They're offering a new product that the customer may want to buy.  They're not charging for something they would have included for free ten years ago.

Would you buy a physical product that hid away features with codes?  Instead of buying an attachment for your vacuum cleaner imagine it came with everything but there was a big padlock on it you had to pay to unlock to access the extra attachments.  That would be completely ridiculous.  That's what I see on-the-disc DLC as.  It's there and they just arbitrarily lock it away from you.

The approach these companies take now is "what can we make in this game that we charge extra for?"  I don't want to support companies like that.  What a greedy approach.  I consider that quite different from "later on we'll release an expansion" which is really no different from "later on we'll release a sequel".  Someday there will be movies that charge you extra to see the ending and there will be a lineup of complete suckers going around the block waiting to pay for it.  You could tax these rubes for breathing and they would pay with a smile on their face.

So, what if a publisher gives a developer a budget of $100 to create the game - but gives them an additional $10 towards development if they add some kind of DLC into the game while developing it?

Without DLC, the game would have had the initial $100 to create the game and that's it.

With the DLC, the developer can spend $5 worth of development costs to create the DLC, then spend that extra $5 towards adding even more stuff to the game.

Fair enough. To clarify: one buys Game X specifically for the content of Game X so the belief is that one has already purchased that content at retail. In any case, as someone who has never purchased DLC, I don't have an opinion either way on the subject. I was merely attempting to explain the line of thinking.

It does. I believed these things to be understood. More sophisticated games may require larger budgets but the industry has matured since Zelda 1 and is much larger today. Budgets have risen due to technological demands and so has the audience for such products.

http://www.mangabullet.com/galleryimg/images/eddz/1262315522-mario_311209.png

Has the audience really expanded *that* much?

Obviously, this chart only reflects Japanese numbers and is a few years old, but a twenty year old port of an NES game outselling the high-budget "next gen" Mario Galaxy?

The audience may have expanded, but so has the selection available to them.  Outside of a few HD Winners (Call of Duty, for example), the extra sales are in no way comparable to the increase in budgets from the NES-era to today.

I have no offhand examples of DLC being inflated in size or otherwise dressed up to hide the fact that it's just an unlock. It might not happen, but after the bad press some companies got after getting caught selling DLC keys (or even Nintendo with the free Layton puzzles), it wouldn't surprise me given the lack of oversight and past sleazy behavior on the part of these companies.

A better example is probably the Catwoman mode you had to enter a code for to open that aspect of the game in Arkham City. All already on the disc, and the game world comes with the inaccessible Catwoman sections whether or not she's unlocked. I am ashamed to admit that I bought the game new so as to have Catwoman available.

And then there's Marvel vs. Capcom 3, which had an anemic roster, obviously because they intended to release DLC characters/release a mildly upgraded version of the game at retail.

36 from-scratch characters = anemic  ::)

ERR ANYWAY, I think we're approaching the conclusion that on-disc "DLC" is basically a scam except maybe in certain cases, and game companies are basically on the honor system here/vote with your wallets/etc. I can't imagine any cases where it's been a huge success for a company, but maybe I'm just being too optimistic?

C'mon, you wanted like 56 characters on that puppy out of the box. And She-Hulk and Bionic Commando reboot characters don't count!

Yes. Significantly more people play videogames today and more are born every year.

I find it odd that you would use Mario (or really any Nintendo IP) as an example. Nintendo games are low risk, high reward products even with higher budgets. While I don't think the comparison is fair (the port was $30 less and sold mostly on nostalgia), it's important to note that Super Mario Galaxy still made Nintendo tons of money, certainly enough to justify a direct sequel using the same exact engine which also made Nintendo tons of money.

The selection has expanded, but isn't today's larger audience also buying more games? Also, if you're going to compare budgets from 1986 against budgets in 2012, it looks a lot worse than it actually is since it doesn't take over 25 years worth of steady increases into account. Go back even 10 years ago (prior to DLC on consoles), budgets continued to rise but companies still made money.

Nintendo makes more money today than it did back in the 1980s, a lot more and despite the increased costs. Most games with really high budgets tend to be so popular that they make that money back at retail alone. Ultimately, companies sell DLC because DLC makes money and loads of it. They're certainly entirely entitled to do so just as people are entitled to not buy them. I'm just not convinced that DLC exists because budgets have risen. Content from micro-transactions take a minimal amount of work and yield high rewards.

I will now state that UncleBob has bought a lot of DLC content in just his e-Reader card collection.

Now I'm in the camp that you should be able to have a full satisfying experience in a game with just what you initially purchased.

I believe everything completed on the disc should be unlock for no money some way.

I also believe that things that are partially done and get completed after release can be charged for  if they are purely extensions.

Uncle Bob, its just the principle of it. It isn't really a real problem, but the idea that this content is already there on the disc and that you have to pay in order to use it even though you already have the disc is revolting. Its nothing more than a cheap money grab from the publisher.

The comparison was the entire chart - I just highlighted that one because it shows a lot of the detail.

As for Mario games selling... yeah, but two things are at play.  First Miyamoto does what Miyamoto wants - and he's been trying to cram 3D Mario down our throats for years (in spite of the fact that 2D Mario is what the fans want - and the sales numbers clearly reflect this).  This is an unusual aspect of the market, as most developers aren't given the free reign that Miyamoto is.

Second, Return on Investment. Someone could spend $1 Million developing a Mario-like clone and make $1.5 million in sales.  Or they can spend $10 Million developing an HD Call of Duty clone and make $20 Million in sales.  Which is more appealing?

Well.. I *suppose*... though I did that more for the collecting/trading card aspect than anything else.

So, you'd be okay if the exact same content was on the server for the same price?

Whoops...

I would be more okay with it. At least then it would feel like you are paying for and receiving something extra, as opposed to just paying to be able to use something which is already on the disc you own and paid $60 for. It feels like less of a rip off when you are downloading something extra, and its easy to tell when you are downloading something extra as opposed to unlocking it because if you are downloading it the content will be a hundred megs or more, but if its just some unlock then it will be just a few kilobytes or megabytes. There is no way a major expansion can be crammed into a download only 100kb large. I'm sure there are a lot of suckers out there who don't know any better, but anyone with a moderate amount of computer knowledge knows 100kb is only about enough for a jpeg picture at best. How can you cram new levels and characters and stuff into that? So when that happens its very obvious its on the disc.

But when you pay for a DLC download which is a few hundred MB or 1 or 2 GB in size then you know you are getting the real deal and it feels like you are getting your money's worth out of it.

So, basically, you're advocating for publishers to play mind games with consumers.  Instead of them deciding what they want to charge for a product and doing it, you want them to analyze the best way for them to go about "tricking" you into giving them money so you don't "feel" like you're getting ripped off?

No, I'm advocating they DON'T play mind games with consumers. Right now what they are doing is deceitful and underhanded, because they don't tell you all you are paying for is the unlock and probably the majority of consumers aren't savvy enough to realize that a tiny download can't possibly contain all the new content they are getting. For the most part there is no outrage because few know what's really going on. They should be honest and upfront with their customers.

Do you think its fair what publishers are doing now and tricking people?

@UncleBob
@Ian Sane

You have said some things that I truly agree with on a very fundamental level.

I also hope that I don't have to become a purely "retro gamer" simply because the modern industry has decided to whore itself out to these cheap tricks.


@broodwars

Fine. Didn't have time for it? Then make it for sure FREE and make it deliverable in a permanent fashion.  Not some code that's going to expire when my hardware does.  You want me to have your full game? Guess what, I want it! Win win!

If it's something really cool, delay your game.  If you delay it less than a year total then you won't lose sales.  Let alone if the delay only adds a few weeks. 

Otherwise, don't ship unfinished games. Don't pass the cost of development short-comings on to your consumers.  And don't leave content out "conveniently" to charge us later.

I see nothing wrong with a publisher saying "For $x, you get this.  For $y more, you get this too" - the method they use to deliver that to me isn't my biggest concern.

That's fine, but when a game company clearly fibs about stuff in their marketing, that really boils my butt. Real world example: Namco press released or advertised Darth Vader/Yoda being downloadable in Soul Calibur IV due to popular demand (originally being system-exclusive, of course), which is retarded because A) they weren't downloadable, it was a 192kb unlock code and B) they were already on the disc, it was the plan from the start and not some sort of response to demand. That sort of misrepresentation is what game companies shouldn't get away with.

Does this have anything to do with development costs which is what we're talking about? Probably not when you look at sales of Nintendo's actual games vs. their respective budgets. Nintendo had next to nothing new on the Wii besides Skyward Sword and botched the launched of 3DS. It's not difficult to see where Nintendo fudged things. Nintendo posted years of profit before 2011 when they had major titles to sell throughout the year and weren't trying to sell a $250 handheld with a weak launch lineup.

For those bringing up the rising development costs of games today, I think it is incredibly naive to think that that is the sole justification for companies doing this.  They're doing it because the technology now allows for it.  If it was possible in the Atari days when each game was made by only one staff member they would have done it then.  If game development was dirt cheap and each game had a huge markup they would still do it because why wouldn't they?  If the market tolerates getting nickel and dimed, the industry will do it.  Product placement is the same way.  They'll do it if they feel they can get away with it and it makes no difference if that extra revenue is required to make a living or is just a bonus.

I counter that with the fact that it's incredibly naive to think that any particular action has a singular justification.

However, you're correct - the goal of any publisher is to squeeze as much money out of one product so they can dump it into another (while making their various investors and such happy).

DLC and first-purchase content is just one way they've found to maximize their profit - the fact that it helps to offset rising development costs is simply a plus.

Also, keep in mind - a lot of development costs are, gasp, paid for by the developer.  However, if they can get advances from the publisher, this helps to give them more wiggle room in the development.  A game with the promise of additional income flow (i.e.: after-purchase DLC) simply helps to entice the publisher into giving the developer more funds to work with - now, not only can they point to sales projections, but they can also point to profit from DLC projections...

I doesn't matter what happens on the business side for us*(No matter what you say, the average consumer isn't going to give a shit). The problems is for a lot of people the DLC well has been poisoned and continues to be poisoned by publishers/developers squeezing that last nickel. It's like fishing, there are a certain number of fish you can catch that means fish stocks remain stable. But there are a lot of companies out there constantly overfishing. Sure they get the short term profit, but in the end they are just putting themselves and everybody else out of business.

In theory, I should no problem with DLC, but it has been consistently been done so poorly. A lot of the time all it really does is mess with pricing information. You buy a game, then you find out there is DLC, then you find there is no end to the amount of DLC, nor is there any system to the price or quality of DLC. Pricing information goes out the window since the price can conceivably be infinite in game pricing terms(Not actually infinite). That alone puts me off a lot of the time not to mention the constant underhanded marketing tactics with obvious cut content and the like that just leaves you with nothing but negative feelings.

As consumers adjust to the new environment, more and more people are just going to start sitting out on games and wait for the GOTY edition if they aren't outright discouraged. Sure there will always be that hardcore element that money is no object to, but really in the end your only shrinking your own market and shitting in your own pond.

I don't like the sound of this...

There's definitely an issue game companies face when it comes to rising development costs. The problem is that few consumers are willing to pay $100+ for a single game, so game prices really can't go up even as the cost of making them does. Video games are already one of the if not the highest priced media, so people would be more inclined to buy more movies, music, books, etc. if games started costing more. Plus, I'm not convinced that most people are willing to spend $60 on most games, seeing how fast they drop (myself, I could probably use my fingers to count the number of Wii games I spent the full $50 on). Games may cost a lot to develop but that doesn't make the value to the consumer go up.

There has to be a better solution than nickel and diming people using DLC. The whole thing seems undermining and controlling on the part of publishers. Personally, I think that companies should just produce less games. There shouldn't be a reason for any one system to have thousands of games available, especially when a small fraction of them are actually on store shelves at one time (and that a majority of them are probably junk, but that may not be something which can be proven as quality is partly subjective). Less games selling more copies equals more profits. I know that wouldn't be an easy thing to do, but looking at the number of developers who closed up shop in recent years, something needs to be done. That something just needs to be good for consumers and companies alike.

Likewise, the developers and publishers will have to adjust to the new market.  If everyone just sits it out until the GotY edition is released, then publishers will have to determine do they not release a GotY edition?  Do they make DLC cheaper for first-time buyers/early adopters?  Do they stop DLC all together.

At this point, the entire DLC market/model is too new for anyone to have a firm grasp on how to handle it.

There's a large segment of the population who throws a fit at the idea of a company selling DLC in the form of Horse Armor or other aesthetic upgrades that serve no real purpose.  Meanwhile, there's a large segment of the population who throws a fit at the idea of a company selling DLC that actually serves a purpose - if it's a weapon or upgrade that gives players an advantage or map packs that segment the online community.

We're all learning how to use this new "microtransaction" feature in a way that makes companies money while making customers happy.

Or maybe just cut the crap and just release the GOTY.

What annoys me is when I have to download a 400MB "compatibility" file just to be able to play online with people who have bought certain DLC. So even if I have no interest in the DLC, I have to waste a large chunk of HDD space just to play online with someone who does have it.

Wouldn't that fall under the "Stop DLC altogether" part of that statement?

I bought the GOTY Edition of Uncharted 2... and barely bothered with most of the extras. I watched the Eye of Indra motion comic but that was about it. I didn't pay extra for any of that content. I bought the game the day it dropped to $30.

I'll always hate day 1 patches but I suppose I have nothing against DLC (not really sure either way since I've yet to purchase DLC). Then again, it depends on what it is. Extra optional levels seem awesome-o to me. A fancy hat or armor, not so much. It's up to you to buy it. You just have to decide whether you think a $2 piece of armor is worth it especially if you consider that 30 pieces of armor is the price of the game and these companies are basically telling you that that's equal value.

I have such a huge backlog of games that it isn't a problem at all for me to just wait for the GOTY/Ultimate/Complete or whatever they call it edition of a game comes out. I kinda feel sorry for people who spend $60 to get a game on release day, and then probably spend another $60 on the DLC that comes out for it over time. That's like $120 on one game in some cases, which is ridiculous... but often times if you are willing to wait long enough you can get the game plus all its DLC on one single disc for $20 or so.

In fact, recently Amazon had Batman Arkham Asylum GOTY with all the dlc on sale for only $14.99 which is crazy. I'd hate to be someone who spent $60 + the cost of DLC and then see that deal. I understand Arkham City is out now and Arkham Asylum is an old game relatively speaking, but that doesn't mean it sucks or is obsolete by any means. That's why I'm just going to wait on Arkham City too. Not only wait for the GOTY edition, but also wait for the GOTY edition to be dirt cheap.

In Batman: Arkham Asylum's case, the DLC for that is mostly challenge rooms. Your mileage may vary on those but I never had must interest in the challenge rooms. DLC for Arkham City so far has been extra characters and costumes. I haven't heard of anything else beyond that.

I don't see why you need to feel sorry for the people you describe. They must really love the game if they are buying so much of it. Or they are impatient.

There are some games, like Skyward Sword and Portal 2, that I got day of launch or very close for 1 simple reason.  Community.  I want to talk about the game here why everyone else is talking about it.  That social aspect to me is worth more then the $40 of potential saving.

Yeah I feel that way too but never really realized it until I read your post. Now I'm basically going to steal your comment for my in person game conversations.