Witcher dev: ‘DLC a service that shouldn’t be priced’

I love these guys.
But yeah as they said, if there is significant content such as there were in expansion packs back in the day, it is okay to ask a price. But if it just is minor content, such as costumes (especially the ondisc ones!) then it should be free.

Of course I agree.

I will never understand why people pay for the DLC like it is available for Mass Effect 3 or any CoD game.

It’s a ripoff and people pay for it, its gruesome and turns the whole gaming industry in something I don’t like just because the mindless baaing horde throws their money at them.

Disgusting.

So yeah I agree, content like Maps, Skins, Fighters ( I am looking at you capcom) and that sort of stuff should be free, imho.

Good gameplay content on the otherside and I said GOOD can be sold and will be bought.

My opinion.

greetings
my name

Edit:
@1 Lol! We thought the same thing….

The only DLC I really purchase is the extra single-player content like Arkham City’s Harley Quinn’s Revenge, Mass Effect 2′s Arrival and Shadowbroker.

It’s great that they’re of that opinion, and maybe they really do feel that way instead of saying they feel like that because it’ll make people really appreciate them when comparing their games to other games. Or they probably do it because of that, but what does it matter if they come through on that front in the end? Investing in consumers is something a lot of publishers don’t care to do anymore as opposed to just cashing in.

@3
And thats the point where the “consumers” should turn into Customers.

If the people (consumers) keep eating the shit that gets thrown on them why should they (the companys) stop throwing shit at them?

If the people don’t realize this soon everything will be DLC, games will be sold in little parts and I guess thats the end of gaming. You can’t stop piracy and the pirates will always get the full game while the “paying consumer” gets punished for buying the first part of the game, having to buy the other parts.

If that happens I really think its the end of the gaming industry and AAA+ games (which would not be that bad would it?), it would be the final straw.

So I really hope people get clever overnight.

@1 and 2 You guys are correct! With incredible shame I have to admit that I bought almost all of the Mass Effect 2 DLC. Yes, even the costumes.. ( But I’m not going to do that anymore. I’m not going to buy any DLC for Mass Effect 3. This has to stop!

Aaaand that’s why this guys are awesome…and they also make great games .

@3: The best thing I can hope for is that this opinion is something that CDPR can spread. Hard Reset had a substantial update for free, and Payday: The Heist too recently. Portal 2 too, although Valve have had that kind of attitude for a while. Then there’s little stuff that is free while some of it costs. I see this a lot on PSN. It doesn’t make me buy the other stuff. But it’s nice to see it regardless.

Though personally don’t really care about anything but the single-player content to be annoyed by the fact that they cost. I don’t need them to feel that I’ve finished a game. Sure, would be awesome as hell if more games offered free content, but I’ve kind of learned how to ignore it, and focus on SP content.

CDPR will definitely benefit from this attitude. I sadly don’t see the rest of the industry doing it until more publishers join in. I mean, the gaming industry is competitive like any so if enough games offer free content.

I hate to break it to you guys, but DLC doesn’t just grow on trees… Everything needs to be created, developed, tested and marketed by a team of human beings. We all know that game devs crunch hours and hours of unpaid work as it is, let’s cut them some slack, they deserved to be paid for their work, just like the rest of us. (yes, even an avatar outfit takes time to be created)

@5 You shouldn’t feel ‘incredible shame’ for buying Mass Effect DLC. Bioware are a prime example of a team that has tried to bend over backwards for it’s fans. They created ME3, something which took years of work and effort, just for it to be slated by their fans because the ending wasn’t what THEY wanted. It must have been so crushing for them to see something that they had slaved over just be chewed up and spat out…yet still they tried to make it right…for FREE. They release tonnes of free DLC all the time! I think it’s great that you bought avatar items, I did too! It’s my small way of showing support to a studio I admire.

^And they will get their payment if it is something worthy of money. A new costume is hardly worthy of money, especially if it is something that is already on the disc. And regarding the hours of unpaid work, that is normal in software development, doesn’t matter if it is games or applications, unpaid work is the norm. With your logic we should also pay for patches since they go through the same cycle of planning, coding, testing, certification, deployment.

@8
Showing support to a studio you like is a good thing, but that mostly only works with Indie Studios. Most of the money goes to the publisher as the studio is already paid for their job.

Of course there are people working for that kind of DLC, but why even bother producing those stuff then? Look at CoD –> the map packs divide the player base in those that pay and in those that don’t, making the game worse as a whole for all. If they would be free everyone would have fun with them. And wow now listen closely!

There was a time when Maps were made by the COMMUNITY. FOR FREE! I call blasphemie. They took away all the tools and possibilities only to sell the maps on their own. greedy bastards, and you really do pay for that and feel proud for being ripped off? There are better ways to get ripped off …

and then what @9 said.

greetings
my name

I have bought dlc before but only when the combined dlc cost less than the goty – or a goty wasn’t made as in mass effect 2. Id rather have 5-10+ hour expansion pack for sp than 30min to 2 hours of little dlc every four to six months. So if Im going to get dlc that is what I do I buy them at goty time when no more (normally) come out. MP or gun pack dlc have never made sense to me. Gun packs are either reskins or just easy mode enablers and multiplayer fun wears out fast for me, okay Im not that good but I really prefer a sp story than just running around shooting people for no reason.

With the witcher 2 I dont have to wait which has been great.

@charliebrandy,
“I hate to break it to you guys, but DLC doesn’t just grow on trees… Everything needs to be created, developed, tested and marketed by a team of human beings. We all know that game devs crunch hours and hours of unpaid work as it is, let’s cut them some slack, they deserved to be paid for their work, just like the rest of us. (yes, even an avatar outfit takes time to be created)”

hipocricy at it’s best. For your information people that make amazing mods recieve no money.

Map Packs or skins are 2-3 days at work at best by 2 people.

@12

Exactly, the people who make mods don’t get paid. People who develop games professionally do (and should).

@12
“Map Packs or skins are 2-3 days at work at best by 2 people.”

That’s well up there with some of the most ridiculous crap you’ve ever come up with on this site. A good single map should take weeks of effort by a team of designers, artists and gameplay/quality testers.

#12

Stupid comment made by a bullshitting idiot. You dont have the slightest clue about what is involved in ANY aspect of software development.

@9 & 10 My previous post states that Bioware created extra endings to mass effect for free. This is because many fans disliked it. When there is something ‘wrong’ or ‘broken’ with a product, or if it needs an update/patch, then yes of course I think that should be free. What I meant was I am happy to pay for EXTRA content, such as the recent Skyrim DLC pack, which is hours of fun!

Also just because something is the ‘norm’ doesn’t make it right…by that logic, working conditions will never improve for software developers, and people will continue to miss out on spending time with their families.

As for COD, I’m not sure you picked the best example there, it is by far the biggest selling gaming franchise on xbox/ps3, and it has a very high retention rate, people love it. So they must be doing something right.

@13 Well said!

15 bucks for some CoD maps – NO.
Money for skins/weapons/costumes – NO.
Money for GTA Episodes/RDR/DA:Awakening/other significant gameplay – YES

This is how I feel about DLC.
Actually the only DLC is reasonable to be priced and it is not bringing a whole much is new cars in racing games, because the fees to license the cars and then scanning them, tracking them on a track to capture how they behave and make them to look real(if included cockpit view, is a shitload of work and expensive.(I can tell you that first hand, because I worked some years ago on a now canned MMO Racing game.

@16
About people loving CoD. I don’t know from where you are but in germany we have a TV Channel called RTL.

RTL is, imho, filled with garbage, I have no clue how to descripe but its stuff like super model casting, music casting shows and other “reality tv” stuff, people like those too, doesnt mean its good. Makes people stupid, people watch it because people want to be stupid because thinking hurts (for them I assume).

Its the same with CoD.

And now about the DLC issue:
It looks like we approve here. You mentioned Dawnguard for Skyrim I agree thats DLC thats worth paying for as it is like a small expansion pack, I only disagree with the price. 10 bucks is reasonable 20 bucks is way too much.

^ People play COD because thinking hurts them and they want to be stupid? as opposed to maybe they enjoy the gameplay so they you know,play the game? Its become so popular its just too beneath you hmmm,It’s not highbrow enough for yah? Can tell you are a reasoned and open minded thinker with such sensible and reasoned explanations for why people play COD…
seriously some of the shit that gets posted in these comments.Is that an alt account for Erthazus or what.

@18 Call of Duty is my all-time favourite online series, as unpopular as that opinion may be.

Does that make me stupid as well?

Just keen for answer really, anytime

@18 It’s kinda funny to accuse people of not thinking, and then proceed to make the most childish and hysterical assumptions in the whole debate, isn’t it?

I think RTL are hiring!

@21 nice.

Yeah they are man, seem to making a big R&D effort into multiplayer, which could be very interesting.

@20
I don’t know you, so I can’t judge if you are stupid or not.
But you obviously don’t feel offended like other people that answered.

@21
Funny, indeed.

I think i will go to the extreme here and i dare to say it, DLC shouldnt exist period, a game should be done completly at release date and leave it that way, map packs included, COD for instance, i dont hate the game, you see DLC on monthly basis, and is almost the same with battlefield 3, therefore instead of annualizations we have right now monthlyzations, which is an scary picture if you ask me, we have the same game every month, nice.

Good point Manu. In business, it’s getting pretty common to hear people talk about “the age of irresponsibility”.

Since the late 70′s, people have gotten so caught up in chasing the nearest, quickest buck that they completely forget about securing their business, and ultimately that threatens the entire market.

In terms of games, that means lower quality content at higher prices, which means people enjoy games less, which is ultimately not a good thing for the people making them.

@25
The last part you said is the thing I fear. I grew up with retail games, boxed games! Yeah boxes! Just another point in quality loss. I feel old now.

With declining game quality gaming suffers overall.

@26 I’m with you some part of the way. Boxes were great when they were actually worth looking at, and looking inside.

Back in the day, an overwhelming number of ordinary copies were basically “collector’s editions”.

I remember getting Lemmings 2 and loving that little book that came with it. I kept that weird “Diary of a Mad Man” from Dreamweb, even though I don’t remember actually buying the game, and I’m never getting rid of my Little Big Adventure boxes.

Personally I’m not sad that we’ve gone digital though. What used to be great packaging just became useless plastic with a google translated manual, that was really more bother than it was worth.

The only boxes I’ve seen that I’ve actually liked in something like a decade are the Blizzard ones.

@27
ofc its bothersome delivering low quality content for the customer.

The thing that bothers me with digital is that it costs the same or even more then a retail copy and that is totally unjustified if you ask me.

Its just ctrl + c and ctrl + v for the same price, wtf? Thats just wrong.

Still got my boxed master of magic version here. CD is broken, bought it again from gog.com. Awesome.

Just another thing DLC can’t deliver. The satisfaction of a physical game copy in your hands.

I have zero problem with paid for dlc, maybe because I have a sense of impulse control? Or maybe I just don’t get all bent out of shape about supposed missing content.

Personally I’d like to see more critical opinion of the content, or more in-depth info on what a weapon pack might offer.

I thoroughly enjoyed the dlc for Deadspace & figured the dlc for Deadspace 2 would be as fun, which was a mistake

@29 For me it’s the fact that we used to get better content than that. When you bought an expansion you could actually be sure that a bit of time and care had gone into it.

That’s definitely not the case anymore.

^Well we did get some pretty bad expansion packs too back in the day. Nostalgia can color the memory or whatever x)
Just think of Half-Life: Blue Shift o.O

@30
The only good DLC I can remember was the missing link from Deus Ex 3, can’t think of any else right now.

Best retail expansions… I know a few. D2:LoD, WC3:TFT, Sacred 1… and many more.

Edit
@31 oh yeah half life! I loved Opposing Force.

“For me it’s the fact that we used to get better content than that. ”

Thats subjective and the fact that games cost are exponentially higher in cost for development means that devs and publisher have to find a way to make up the cost of the game and make a profit. Which I am sure CDProjekt found out with their second game and it selling similiar as the original did which I haven’t heard anything about the Xbox 360 version but I doubt it did well or there would have been a headline 360 version sells more than PC version or better than expected. I honestly didn’t feel the extended patch for WItcher 2 was really worth the extra download as it added little to nothing for the actual game. Then again I wasn’t a huge fan of Witcher 2 either.

@33
The exponentially higher costs for games are also based on subjective opinion. I personally don’t need or require fotorealistic graphics to enjoy a game. I still enjoy playing Gothic 1, Warcraft 2 or Starcraft 1. And right now I enjoy the game Hack, Slash, Loot.

So you can claim that the content is the same just the gameplay got reduced for better graphics.

Sounds logical to me.

Might be the reason why I am in love with MineCraft.

@30
Though on the flip side a hell of a lot more care and cost goes into modern game development but we still expect to pay the same for it.

That’s really a big part of it. We used to be happy with a racer having 6 tracks and 10 vehicles. Now we want 20+ tracks, 200+ vehicles, better art, better design, more options, modes, online and we ain’t paying a penny more for it – oh no.

Game content is a big thing. What is enough for most people? What is enough for the prices we pay?

Some here would be happier with a game which cost £40 and came with 20 tracks and 100 vehicles + another 3 tracks as free dlc than another game which cost the same and came with 30 tracks, 200 vehicles and then charged for some dlc which they tried to save money on by shipping it on the disc.

@34

You can believe what you want but when a game like BG would cost less than a million to develop would cost at least 15 million currently and that is with using similar graphics. Its because the man power, the complexity of developing, getting it known and pushing it out are higher in cost than they were in the previous generations. Its not just about graphic fidelity. BTW I didn’t say a damn thing about content so I am not sure why you are using that as an argument. I was just talking about paid DLC.

@36
So you claim nowadays its harder to make your game noticeable then back then? I don’t agree with that, its the opposite quite frankly.

If I look at you statment about higher development costs I look at some of the games that released not so long ago and most of them were bugged, glitchy, nearly unplayable for many people. Lets take Rage for example.

If you have so many developers why does that happen?

Maybe because too many cooks spoil the broth?

Well i find funny that the games that had the most people working on them and had the biggest budgets, are the ones that were focus more on deliering a more cinematic feel than better gameplay or better AI, so i dont think is a problem of what gamers want, is more about what publishers and some developers make us believe(according to their overall strategy) what we might want,instead of what we do really believe want or need, although sometimes what we want and need are not the same, but you got my point, they are telling us what we want, we are not telling them what we do want.

@38
No we are telling them, they just can’t / don’t want to hear us. I will let you (all who read this) assume why I said can’t.

What you said fits with the statement from this one developer that claimed we need photorealistic graphics to make new genres.

And I would say what mostly influences the games made and the way they are made are the publishers. They are the evil guys. Mostly.

@37

Rage had a small team less than 40 people that were working on it so your point is moot especially since that number is the same to older games like BG.

You are grabbing at straws. Its obvious you don’t have experience in this but its quite easy to do the math even with under estimating. Wage for a developer for games like witcher range from 40k-80k than you have 50 people over a period of 2 years than you have to pay for engine costs or if you are doing it in house than it gets exponentially higher because that takes more time and programmers and programmers aren’t cheap. Then you have middleware like speedtree, scaleform to help with the pipleline. You also have to distribute it which can take 30-60% off the top not to mention you have to pay for marketing if you want your game known.

Fully agree with the article. One of the only games where I can see DLC as a bonus was the Rock Band games. And of course same such games, like the dance games, etc.

But if your going to give me enough content for me to want to pay for it, stick it in an expansion and I will pony up the cash.

Just don’t with hold content. Don’t stick content on a disc and sell me a code to unlock it. Don’t treat DLC the way most publishers curently do.

In truth, games down the road will prolly be about 10usd-20usd for the client and what amounts to an extended demo, while the bulk of the game will be sold in DLC incrementes. Basicly a modified freemium model.

#39 well i was talking more on the lines that with each passing gen, we see an increase in the mentality of a lot of developers at aiming a movies, for more a cinematic feel, we got this gen a lot of games which the main focus was this aspect, and i think next gen will be more so, it will be great to run a survey between gamers which is the factor that we wish will evolve the most on games, in my eyes having a more cinematic feel will not come in the top two, but maybe iam being a little bias, because i dont mind this that much on games, but a survey and doing an analysis of that data will be good.

@40
I admit I don’t know much of the costs that come with producing a game.

But I know for a fact, because I played these games, that the games nowadays aren’t as good as old ones. The only games that I call memorable were the Witcher Series and Deus Ex 3. Deus Ex 3 the most. And Dead Space 1.

The overall “yearly game output number” ( I just made that one up) increased so I can claim that the percentage of good games is lower then before. So somewhere something went wrong and money is being wasted on the wrong spots, or it is just me.

And please tell me which game BG is. BG stands for?

Edit:
@42
Yeah I get your point and I conform with your opinion.
I just went to cinema last weekend to saw the newest Batman and it really was very emotional for me. An absolutely stunning movie. What I want to say with that is: our games steer in the cinema action movie direction but without the memorable moments. The last time I got really emotional over a game was Deus Ex 3. God damn thats a good game. Its been so long. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here.

We get a nice surface but its hollow.

@41

“In truth, games down the road will prolly be about 10usd-20usd for the client and what amounts to an extended demo, while the bulk of the game will be sold in DLC incrementes. Basicly a modified freemium model.”

Or something to the effect of tell tales game where the games become more episodic. I remember going to GDC and a developer talking about games being more about gaming per minute than games by each unit sold. I wish that more studios would go with Tell Tale Games version doing things. It makes it more flexible and versatile to stay afloat and if walking dead is an example you don’t need fancy doo-dads to make a good game. Just the content.

@43

Balduar’s Gate.

I am not talking about what gen of games is better. THats a preference thing. I had more PS2 games than I did for this gen but that is because in the PS2 era I had a lot more freedom and little to no responsibility.

@31 I don’t recall saying that they were all golden, but at least you could count on the fact that some actual effort had gone into them.

As opposed to stripping and repackaging a small part of the original storyline, or a selection of weapons, and passing that off as something worth paying extra for.

Too often, it’s just money for nothing.

@33 Games are also proportionately shorter.

The fact that publishers and developers don’t know how to run their projects, moderate their features, and work a spreadsheet isn’t my problem, and I’m not likely to pick up the bill for their incompetence.

Generally that’s not a very good motivation to start hiking prices.

@35 I guess it depends on how you define care, but yeah, some developers decide to spend a lot on graphics, where others might be more interested in the actual content.

I think it’s a bit of a cop out that technology is more demanding, in terms of cost.

Games are also decidedly shorter, and every bit as expensive as before. Ultimately it’s up to developers and publishers to handle their budgets. If the tech is too expensive, they need to find a way around that.

@DrDamn,
““Map Packs or skins are 2-3 days at work at best by 2 people.”

That’s well up there with some of the most ridiculous crap you’ve ever come up with on this site. A good single map should take weeks of effort by a team of designers, artists and gameplay/quality testers.”

You are a fucking moron. Testers always work in the development team but “creating” maps require 2-4 people at best by 2-4 days. AT BEST. There is nothing hard or creative and devs are already paid because maps are always included in the design document before the alpha stage. Supporting the game is the key and it was free before. The only reason why it is not free now because Publishers are greedy and that’s it.
Concept of these maps created by designers long time ago in the Design document for your information and only testing is required which is the only thing that goes that long in the dev period. Just shut up for f sake you know shit.

@Gadzooks, just shut up already. Go jerk off to your EksBawksThreesixty. If you have nothing to add just go lie with your fake WoW account to N4G or other 360fanboy.com site.

@46
hey there calm down.

No reason to get worked up, dont bother with him.

He wants you to flame at him, don’t do him that favor.

@45

“As opposed to stripping and repackaging a small part of the original storyline, or a selection of weapons, and passing that off as something worth paying extra for.”

Weapons are vanity items and offer little to nothing for the actual game much like Portal 2 with the in-game store for customization.

I have yet to pay for DLC that was “stripped” or “repackaged” then again I don’t touch Capcom games since RE5. Publishers have to continue paying for the developers and there is a time between release that devs are sitting on their hands waiting for release as the game is going through certification or being tested. Publishers have found a way to monetize that and that is having them make DLC in hopes of gaining some revenue especially since DLC doesn’t going through the same avenues that the physical product does. Borderlands 2 is a great example of DLC I like. They will have a new class after release and they give it free for those that preorder.

#43 yes i understand your point, and i concur, we get half baked attempts on that, but even when they manage to do it with top quality cinematic feel, like lets use your example, like the batman movies, i hope they will focus on new forms of gameplay, and better AI too, because those are also important, therefore the focus should not only be on that, it needs to be an all fronts, in order to get great games.

@45
“Games are also proportionately shorter.”

That’s a very selective view of things. If you just look at CoD campaigns then yes they are quite short, but look at stuff like Demon’s/Dark Souls, GT/Forza, Disgaea, Uncharted compared to Tomb Raider, GTA, Just Cause, Multiplayer modes in general. A lot of modern games are huge in terms of content.

@46
Don’t even know where to begin. We are talking about cost. Therefore that includes design, development, testing, QA. None of it is free or already somehow accounted for.