3 ms·
I understand it's bad when people charge full game prices for something that's actually the first chapter in a series of paid DLC... But why is DLC fundamental
by erikpukinskis 10y ago
I understand it's bad when people charge full game prices for something that's actually the first chapter in a series of paid DLC...
But why is DLC fundamentally bad? To me it seems to match the tick-tock-tock nature of engine development: build a game, spend years on an engine and content, price it at full price, then release a series of cheaper content-only products that use the same engine. Use that income to pay for next gen engine development.
The alternative is that developers can only release content if it's feature-length and using a next generation engine? That seems like a pointless demand.
- Karunamon 10y agoBut why is DLC fundamentally bad? The same reason preorders are bad: it creates perverse incentives for developers and publishers. The problem people have with DLC isn't that developers are being demanded to release feature-length content, it's that developers are incentivized to lock stuff that's already developed and in the game behind a paywall. Essentially selling you content that you already purchased. I'm not too worried about Nintendo succumbing to this problem, but there are some other devs out there with no such scruples. EA and Activision come to mind..
- erikpukinskis 10y agoI don't understand, you're saying you think a developer who sells a great product at a good price will typically make less revenue than if they broke off part of that product, sold it as DLC, and took the hit in the press? Is that an empirical finding?
- Karunamon 10y agoI'm saying developers exist who seem to think that's correct and gaming as a whole suffers for it.