[QUOTE="XVision84"]
[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]
Is that why most of the first-party games they put out have DLC? LittleBigPlanet's been putting out new Sackboy outfits and sticker packs weekly for a year and a half. Pain was a concept created by their marketing department for the express purpose of selling DLC.
Microsoft probably got the ball rolling early, considering that they were doing this on the Xbox, but every publisher is a part of this, and it's because they like money. EA doesn't sell cheats because they can't fit on the disk. Oblivion's legendary horse armor wasn't released online for lack of space. Street Fighter 4's outfits were available in arcades, yet Capcom charged money for them on consoles.
DLC is all about getting more money out of people that already like your game. Just like collector's editions, DLC is a way of effectively raising the retail price of the product. The $60 retail price bump hasn't been enough for publishers this generation, so they've been getting more and more creative with their monetization.
For most publishers this generation, there's no point in giving away something that you can make people pay for.
sonicmj1
For your first statement the truth is that LBP is a game where you use content given to you to make levels. LBP is filled with content on the disk, it's enough for many people. Now, some people want MORE content to make BETTER levels, LBP is a perfect way for DLC and money, there is a PURPOSE for the DLC and it is REASONABLY PRICED therefore it is a smart way of making money without completely ripping off customers. Microsoft on the other hand releases DLC that is overpriced and is completely unnecessary. They waste money of timed exclusivity and they actually support the MW2 dlc! $15 for 5 maps, that's $3 per map, don't give me the excuse "your not forced to buy it" or "it's for the fans" because no matter what it IS milking and it is a rip off. Sony does not support DLC as much as Microsoft, and just like NOOBtuber said Sony is losing some profit from their game division but anyone can tell that they take pride in Playstation from their actions, and just the way they present it in conferences and such, they pay extra to have games like Heavy Rain or Fahrenheit released. Those 2 games could have failed miserably and probably weren't going to sell all that well but they put them out there because they were great games with great stories.
What you stated about Oblivion and EA, that's all individual companies, not Sony nor Microsoft. Also, again he didn't mean ALL DLC are because of Microsoft, he was asking people if they thought that the limited space in a DVD can possibly be a cause of DLC, if GTA4 had been a PS3 exclusive would Ballad of Gay Tony be included in the disk? Rockstar complains about the 360s limited space, the only thing keeping them from making the next GTA a ps3 exclusive is Microsoft's constant bribing, apparently it's going to be on multiple disks for the 360. DLC is a way to make money but the main selling point or purpose of DLC is for replay value, many people don't realize that. The siege pack for Uncharted 2 included a new co op mode, new maps, new skins, a new mode, and new trophies, that was to make people who had left Uncharted 2 to go back to it, it was $5.99, did it sell well? YES. Did people go back to Uncharted 2 because of this? YES. Therefore was it successful? YES. Is it an example of how DLC should be like? YES. The same goes for the Pirates of the Caribbean DLC in LBP. That's what DLC is meant for, when the CoD4 map pack was released it wasn't reasonably priced, PC gamers were smart enough to avoid it while Lemmings quickly bought it as fast as possible. End result? The CoD4 remains in XBL and PSN to this day as a paid DLC and it is completely free for PC. When Microsoft said PC users would have to pay for LIVE, they avoided it meanwhile xbox users rushed out and payed $60 for LIVE, end result? Online is free for PC while Live is still $60 a year for xbox. I think I've proved my point here.
The question wasn't whether the DLC was good or not. The question was why it existed. I'm a big fan of what LBP did with the MGS4 and Pirates DLC packs. Doesn't mean they didn't cost money. Whether the DLC is appropriately priced or a total ripoff (always a subjective assessment anyways), it's still a way for publishers to get more money from consumers after they've bought a product. Fundamentally, there's no difference at all between the Uncharted Siege Pack and MW2's Stimulus Package.
Sony supports DLC just as much as Microsoft does. I can't think of a significant difference between how Halo 3 and Gears were treated and how Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 were treated. They charge for maps, they charge for modes, they charge for shiny new themes for your console. They give you replay value in exchange for money, just like every other publisher on the planet. DLC plans have nothing to do with hardware manufacturers, and everything to do with publishers.
It's ludicrous to suggest that a full campaign package that Rockstar released a year after their game launched would have shipped on disk had it been PS3-exclusive content. It's ludicrous to act like Sony's DLC is a wonderful gift to gamers, unlike the DLC of other publishers, when everyone is still charging money. It's ludicrous to compare the PC market, where people have had free DLC and online access for years, to the console market, where many gamers are accepting of DLC (need I remind you of the millions of dollars in digital sales Sony acquired from Home?).
DLC is a fact of life in the industry now, and if you don't like it, you can go play on the Wii where Nintendo's online infrastructure makes it impossible to distribute. Both Sony and Microsoft wanted to sell DLC going into the generation, every game publisher on the two consoles has been gleefully producing content, and gamers on both sides have been lapping it up.
What you say is true, DLC is a way of making more money from consumers after they've gotten a product but at times it is misused and DLC is basically adding in more content to the game to make people go back to it, that's the point of it, as the months go by less and less content is included in DLC and the prices for it keep getting higher and higher which is terrible. Sony doesn't support DLC as much as Microsoft does, Microsoft basically pays companies to be featured in DLC and let it sell, and the original question was whether the 360 having less space on a single disk contributes to more DLC, the answer being that it's possible. It's not the point of DLC but it IS possible that it can be a factor to a company deciding on it. I never said that DLC was a "wonderful gift to gamers" but DLC was normally made to add content to the game, now it's changed so much and the prices for it have rised so that now it's all about providing the least content as possible for the most price possible, and it's part of the many people who buy DLC at these crazy prices that contribute to this. It seems like this topic's true purpose has been buried and turned into an all-out Sony vs Microsoft fight :lol:.
Log in to comment