Let me talk about why I hate DLC.
I hate DLC because I could see Shin Megami Tensei 4 coming from five years ago.
SMT games have always been grindfests. I bought the others - I didn't beat any of them because they are a gajillion hours long, but I enjoyed them.
SMT4 has extremely limited money and experience. Enemies don't drop money, and you can only get it in tiny drips and drabs. You can regenerate MP faster than you can get XP. It's a starved game.
That's been true forever - SMT has always been on the "hard" side, which is one reason I always liked it. The other reason I liked it is that you're free to experiment by building custom demons and playing around with different builds, just like in Persona.
But SMT4 takes that scarcity up a few notches, and I was confused as to why. At first I thought it was just during the tutorial section, but it turns out that the tutorial is when money and XP comes easiest. After that, the pacing turns into something a high-level grinding MMO would be ashamed of.
This makes it almost impossible to customize demons. A level 3 demon costs about 1500 macca to re-summon. 1500 macca is fifteen fetch quests, or five of the fetch quests you get at level 10. Each fetch quest requires a not insignificant number of monster bits. This makes the fun part of the SMT series - remixing demons - a serious chore. A huge burden. I have demons in my inventory that cost ten times more money than I have ever had to resummon. So I can't mix them, because I'll never get them back.
They also raised the random brutality of the game, turning into less a game of skill and more a game of avoiding ever taking any chances or you'll have to pay the reaper. Literally.
Why did they make these mysterious changes? Well, let's see.
Real money DLC is aimed at giving you scads of money, XP, and broken weapons. And resurrection? You can use real money for that, too.
So $2 in real money will net me a basically unlimited amount of cash. 1500 macca in one drop, minimum.
Oh? Is it clear why they poisoned their own game?
I paid these guys full game price and they gave me a broken game, expecting I'd get so annoyed that I'd pay them more money to break it in the opposite direction.
Let's be clear. I am not "choosing not to buy" DLC. Nor am I "resisting their attempts to sell me" DLC. No, I would never buy DLC for this game. Ever. It was never even on the table. Never.
But in their desperation, they tried to push me for more money. In the process, they broke their game. They don't even pitch the DLC until pretty late in the game, but the broken-ness is there from the start.
They also broke their franchise: I bought every SMT game. I'm not going to buy SMT5, if there is one. I've also bought every Persona game. I'm going to have to think reeeeeal hard about the next one, though, because this is bullshit.
Can DLC be done right?
Sure. Kerbal does DLC right. There's a huge amount of Kerbal DLC. Much of it is higher quality than the original stuff. Because the Kerbal developers don't make any money off of it, they didn't break their game to try and sell it.
Can DLC be sold without breaking the game?
Sure. Batman: Arkham City has that awful Catwoman campaign, along with scads of other content. None of it is very interesting to me, but I paid full price for Arkham City and the reason I eventually got tired of it had nothing to do with it being broken for DLC sale purposes.
But you have to be careful. When there's money to be made, it's easy to get into the mindset of "this is how to monetize well, so just do more like that".
And then you break your game and your franchise and alienate gamers that have plenty of money they would be happy to give you if you would give them the game they paid for and not some bullshit money siphon.
Showing posts with label dlc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dlc. Show all posts
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
DLC and Saying Stuff
You know, I think I figured out why I hate DLC so much. Even free DLC.
It's because I think of game rules as having a lifetime. A game is simply the thing you do while exploring the rules. Eventually, the mechanics run out of things to say, and the game is over.
These days, most games don't have much to say. But the content goes on and on and on and on. I can't count the number of games where I say "well, I think I've done all there is to do in this game" and I'm only halfway through.
The game still has a plot, still has half a map left to explore... but I already know how it will play out. It has nothing meaningful left to discover. And, to be frank, there aren't any games with storylines and characters impressive enough to make me want to finish anyway.
So, when I see a game that has DLC, my first thought is "not only will the DLC fail to make the game any more interesting, it also strongly implies that the developers don't know what they are trying to say."
...
That was the important thing I wanted to say about DLC. Here's some unimportant stuff.
There are games where the primary draw of the game is socializing with your friends. In those games, even simple mechanics are supported by chatting with your friends. Is DLC okay in this kind of game?
Well, I don't play that sort of game, so I don't know the answer. If I want to play a game with my friends, I pick one that we haven't played to death. I pick one that still has something to say. Sometimes I pick one that I think will talk most loudly to my friends, sometimes I aim for one that I still want to see more of. But the choice is still about the game.
The idea of a giant virtual world is a fun one, but there are some fundamental problems. I think that today's virtual worlds are a big mess of different aims, and they have completely different things to say to different kinds of people. The cash shop in these games has goods aimed at each kind of player.
But in the end, if I'm going to be part of a virtual world, it'll be because I want to make things. Not simply live there in some vacuous virtual facsimile of pure consumerism. DLC and the ability for players to make things are diametrically opposed. So, for me, DLC in a virtual world says something a bit different.
In another game, it says "The developers don't know what they are trying to say". In a virtual world, it says "The developers don't care what you are trying to say".
...
The reason I bring this up is because I am creating diving game prototypes. The atmosphere of diving down into the depths is really compelling. But the things that experience has to say are slow things.
The experience of being in the dark, isolated, and probably a bit lost is not one which strikes instantly. It's something that grows in the back of your mind as you play. Moreover, although it is a slow thing, it is something that doesn't have infinite depth.
What I'm saying is that the diving game speaks about that kind of thing, but the sweet spot is probably 30 minutes in. Before that, it's mute. After that, you've heard it and are reaching out your hands in the darkness for something else.
So... the diving game has to have something faster to say, and something to say beyond the darkness.
And that's not so easy to plan out.
It's because I think of game rules as having a lifetime. A game is simply the thing you do while exploring the rules. Eventually, the mechanics run out of things to say, and the game is over.
These days, most games don't have much to say. But the content goes on and on and on and on. I can't count the number of games where I say "well, I think I've done all there is to do in this game" and I'm only halfway through.
The game still has a plot, still has half a map left to explore... but I already know how it will play out. It has nothing meaningful left to discover. And, to be frank, there aren't any games with storylines and characters impressive enough to make me want to finish anyway.
So, when I see a game that has DLC, my first thought is "not only will the DLC fail to make the game any more interesting, it also strongly implies that the developers don't know what they are trying to say."
...
That was the important thing I wanted to say about DLC. Here's some unimportant stuff.
There are games where the primary draw of the game is socializing with your friends. In those games, even simple mechanics are supported by chatting with your friends. Is DLC okay in this kind of game?
Well, I don't play that sort of game, so I don't know the answer. If I want to play a game with my friends, I pick one that we haven't played to death. I pick one that still has something to say. Sometimes I pick one that I think will talk most loudly to my friends, sometimes I aim for one that I still want to see more of. But the choice is still about the game.
The idea of a giant virtual world is a fun one, but there are some fundamental problems. I think that today's virtual worlds are a big mess of different aims, and they have completely different things to say to different kinds of people. The cash shop in these games has goods aimed at each kind of player.
But in the end, if I'm going to be part of a virtual world, it'll be because I want to make things. Not simply live there in some vacuous virtual facsimile of pure consumerism. DLC and the ability for players to make things are diametrically opposed. So, for me, DLC in a virtual world says something a bit different.
In another game, it says "The developers don't know what they are trying to say". In a virtual world, it says "The developers don't care what you are trying to say".
...
The reason I bring this up is because I am creating diving game prototypes. The atmosphere of diving down into the depths is really compelling. But the things that experience has to say are slow things.
The experience of being in the dark, isolated, and probably a bit lost is not one which strikes instantly. It's something that grows in the back of your mind as you play. Moreover, although it is a slow thing, it is something that doesn't have infinite depth.
What I'm saying is that the diving game speaks about that kind of thing, but the sweet spot is probably 30 minutes in. Before that, it's mute. After that, you've heard it and are reaching out your hands in the darkness for something else.
So... the diving game has to have something faster to say, and something to say beyond the darkness.
And that's not so easy to plan out.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Death of DLC
I've posted about my distaste of for-pay DLC in the past. I've been thinking about why I hate it so much. I've come up with a simple answer which explains both why I hate it and why it is going to fade away as new business models emerge:
DLC weakens the game.
If two games have the same content, but one of those games has some of that content locked behind a download wall and the other has it included for free, then the one which includes it is going to be a stronger game.
A game with DLC is weaker than the same game which includes all the DLC right from the get-go.
This isn't just paid DLC - it's all DLC. Patches, free DLC - it would always be better to simply have it packaged with the game itself.
Even if it's a free download, it's an additional step and, in a few years, you'll probably shut down your server and the content will simply go away. So the DLCified game is weaker than an identical game with that same content packaged right in.
"But DLC allows the game developers to make more money off their game, which allows them to make more content, or even a whole other game!"
That's business, yeah. Games need to make money. But business models change. I feel very sure that the "freemium" or pay-DLC method is going to die out. Not only because it is weakening the game in an attempt to cash in, but also because the nature of DLC is going to change - which I'll talk about in a moment.
I don't know what the optimal solution is, but if I'm right about the nature of content, it'll be some sort of pay-curation thing which enhances the game rather than limits it.
"DLC that comes out after the game is released is~"
Things like patches and expansions are kind of a gray area. Patches are obviously best to include with the game upon acquisition, but if you're delivering DVDs, you can't reprint them all with each patch. Technical limitations often mean you'll be using DLC to try and fix a weakness in your original game. But the point stands: the game is weaker than if you could package the DLC in it.
Expansion packs are a gray area. I have a feeling their nature will radically change in the next decade. However, once the expansion pack has come out, the original game would still be improved by having the expansion pack bundled with it upon initial purchase. Putting aside the economics of how to get the expansion pack to pay off, the game is weaker without it than if it were already included.
Well, unless the expansion pack sucks.
"There are good kinds of DLC!"
Yes, there are. For example, Oblivion has tens of thousands of mods and content updates available for it, most of which are free. You can download them and radically modify the game to your preference.
Similarly, Spore and some other "massively single-player" games relied on DLC to provide content from a massive, ever-updating library.
DLC can enhance the game. As far as I can tell, there are three kinds of DLC that make sense as game enhancers:
1) DLC which appeals to a niche. For example, a mod which radically changes the game. It could be included in the game and left disabled, but I think it's okay to make it DLC.
2) DLC which is so vast that no player will ever download more than a tiny portion. For example, the billions of costumes and characters for The Sims.
3) DLC which constantly changes and cannot therefore be packaged. For example, the constantly-uploaded Spore creations.
These three kinds of DLC cannot reasonably be packaged with the game, and strengthen the game when treated as DLC.
Can you make money off of them?
Well, sure. Rather than sell a blue outfit for 40 MS points, you could instead sell a game rebalancer where ringouts are impossible and the gravity is half normal.
But if you can stop thinking about selling DLC, there are opportunities to make money by curating the DLC. For example, if you allow players to create and sell content, you can both provide a platform for other players to buy the content and also take a small cut of the sales and also promote ever-updating packages of "editor's favorite" content.
There are tons of opportunities.
I honestly think that more and more games are going to try to leverage their players. It just makes sense. If there are five hundred thousand people playing your game, there are five hundred thousand people giving you their time for free. You can leverage that by harnessing the things they create and using them to entice and enthrall other players.
Because of this, player generated DLC is the future.
I just can't imagine it any other way. Games which harness their players will have an unimaginable edge over games trying to sell "purple shirt 32" for cash.
But games which harness their players won't be the sole proprietor for DLC. DLC will come from the players. Fast. Faster than the devs can even keep up with reading descriptions of it, let alone create. In that kind of environment, trying to charge for individual pieces of developer-created content will be... difficult. Competitive.
DLC won't die out. It'll become so omnipresent that you won't be able to charge for it.
DLC weakens the game.
If two games have the same content, but one of those games has some of that content locked behind a download wall and the other has it included for free, then the one which includes it is going to be a stronger game.
A game with DLC is weaker than the same game which includes all the DLC right from the get-go.
This isn't just paid DLC - it's all DLC. Patches, free DLC - it would always be better to simply have it packaged with the game itself.
Even if it's a free download, it's an additional step and, in a few years, you'll probably shut down your server and the content will simply go away. So the DLCified game is weaker than an identical game with that same content packaged right in.
"But DLC allows the game developers to make more money off their game, which allows them to make more content, or even a whole other game!"
That's business, yeah. Games need to make money. But business models change. I feel very sure that the "freemium" or pay-DLC method is going to die out. Not only because it is weakening the game in an attempt to cash in, but also because the nature of DLC is going to change - which I'll talk about in a moment.
I don't know what the optimal solution is, but if I'm right about the nature of content, it'll be some sort of pay-curation thing which enhances the game rather than limits it.
"DLC that comes out after the game is released is~"
Things like patches and expansions are kind of a gray area. Patches are obviously best to include with the game upon acquisition, but if you're delivering DVDs, you can't reprint them all with each patch. Technical limitations often mean you'll be using DLC to try and fix a weakness in your original game. But the point stands: the game is weaker than if you could package the DLC in it.
Expansion packs are a gray area. I have a feeling their nature will radically change in the next decade. However, once the expansion pack has come out, the original game would still be improved by having the expansion pack bundled with it upon initial purchase. Putting aside the economics of how to get the expansion pack to pay off, the game is weaker without it than if it were already included.
Well, unless the expansion pack sucks.
"There are good kinds of DLC!"
Yes, there are. For example, Oblivion has tens of thousands of mods and content updates available for it, most of which are free. You can download them and radically modify the game to your preference.
Similarly, Spore and some other "massively single-player" games relied on DLC to provide content from a massive, ever-updating library.
DLC can enhance the game. As far as I can tell, there are three kinds of DLC that make sense as game enhancers:
1) DLC which appeals to a niche. For example, a mod which radically changes the game. It could be included in the game and left disabled, but I think it's okay to make it DLC.
2) DLC which is so vast that no player will ever download more than a tiny portion. For example, the billions of costumes and characters for The Sims.
3) DLC which constantly changes and cannot therefore be packaged. For example, the constantly-uploaded Spore creations.
These three kinds of DLC cannot reasonably be packaged with the game, and strengthen the game when treated as DLC.
Can you make money off of them?
Well, sure. Rather than sell a blue outfit for 40 MS points, you could instead sell a game rebalancer where ringouts are impossible and the gravity is half normal.
But if you can stop thinking about selling DLC, there are opportunities to make money by curating the DLC. For example, if you allow players to create and sell content, you can both provide a platform for other players to buy the content and also take a small cut of the sales and also promote ever-updating packages of "editor's favorite" content.
There are tons of opportunities.
I honestly think that more and more games are going to try to leverage their players. It just makes sense. If there are five hundred thousand people playing your game, there are five hundred thousand people giving you their time for free. You can leverage that by harnessing the things they create and using them to entice and enthrall other players.
Because of this, player generated DLC is the future.
I just can't imagine it any other way. Games which harness their players will have an unimaginable edge over games trying to sell "purple shirt 32" for cash.
But games which harness their players won't be the sole proprietor for DLC. DLC will come from the players. Fast. Faster than the devs can even keep up with reading descriptions of it, let alone create. In that kind of environment, trying to charge for individual pieces of developer-created content will be... difficult. Competitive.
DLC won't die out. It'll become so omnipresent that you won't be able to charge for it.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Why I Don't Use Steam
Every time it comes up in conversation that I don't use Steam, I get asked why. So this post is an easy link to keep me from explaining myself over and over again.
d) DLC fundamentally doesn't fit into the "flow" of a game. Allowing the game to be extended and twisted at any time only works for certain kinds of games. Most games have a beginning, middle, and end. If you add crap in somewhere, you'll end up with the pacing and balance getting screwed up. This seems like a minor problem until you realize you've quit before the endgame because it's gotten boring.
Anyway, that's why I hate "always on" gaming, and Steam in particular.
There are three reasons I don't like Steam.
The first is the one that made me actually stop using Steam: the full-price ($60) games I bought from Steam never seemed to work. They crashed my machine, or they required third party spyware that wouldn't install - just a nightmare. Customer service was never any good - they have the standard "did you try rebooting your computer, I don't actually have any power to do anything like refunds" shit.
So I was getting leery of Steam. I saw the newest Civ available on Steam and said, "No, I'll go buy it from a store." With my shiny physical box, I came home feeling giddy and went through the hour-long installation process only to find... yeah, Civ required Steam, even though I had a physical disk.
Well, okay, that's fucking suspicious. Sure enough, a week later Steam force-fed me an "update" that broke Civ. With no way to roll back.
So fuck Steam.
The other two reasons are less severe, but in the long run they would have probably resulted in me using Steam a whole lot less even if they hadn't actively screwed me.
One is that I really hate the bloatware Steam insists on running in the background at all times, especially when you're trying to run a high-end game that needs all your system resources. I love the way that it is part adware, part spyware - I mean, "piracy prevention". It exists solely to screw the customer, rather than be helpful.
"But it helps you search for games! And manage your downloads!"
Yeah, those things can be done with web pages. Try gog.com or GamersGate - they use no bloatware, no ad server, and I highly recommend them over Steam.
The other reason I hate Steam is because of the fundamental problems with "always on" gaming. This is a blight, and creates dozens of issues. Steam is far from the only offender - all three consoles have the same problem. Always-on gaming really deserves its own post, but I'll quickly mention a few things that are wrong with it.
1) "Piracy prevention" that requires you to have an internet connection, the same computer, be logged in, have the most recent patch, have not modified the game I own, and so on.
2) "Dead man switch": when the central server goes down, nobody can legally play the game. Happens far more frequently than you think.
3) "Social at any price": breaking the immersion of the game to keep reminding you who else is playing the game and what their scores are. The number of games I've bought that I wanted to play with strangers? ZERO. This is also responsible for the rise in "trophy rewards"... my life has been much more peaceful since I learned how to turn them OFF.
4) "Paid DLC". This concept is, on its own, a very serious and horrible nasty shitty thing.
Paid DLC has a lot going against it, despite the fact that many people support it. I'll enumerate those, using letters this time.
a) The first playthrough is the most delicate. It's where the user forms an emotional connection to the setting. Added content is great for extended play, but paid DLC doesn't want to wait, and disrupts the initial playthrough with ads and metagame madness. I think this stunts the player's emotional investment.
b) Paid DLC usually means suppressing non-paid (IE fan-created) DLC. After all, it's competition. While it's theoretically possible to support both, I haven't seen many successful examples and I don't expect to see many.
a) The first playthrough is the most delicate. It's where the user forms an emotional connection to the setting. Added content is great for extended play, but paid DLC doesn't want to wait, and disrupts the initial playthrough with ads and metagame madness. I think this stunts the player's emotional investment.
b) Paid DLC usually means suppressing non-paid (IE fan-created) DLC. After all, it's competition. While it's theoretically possible to support both, I haven't seen many successful examples and I don't expect to see many.
c) It is often an excuse to release less content and charge for extra. For example, the only reason Sony didn't have my credit card info is because they wanted to charge me the price of the full game for the DLC for Disgaea 3. I love Disgaea, but it's being ruined by DLC.
Anyway, that's why I hate "always on" gaming, and Steam in particular.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)