Sections

Bethesda boss responds to the ‘misunderstanding’ of day-one DLC critics

Wednesday, 10th April 2013 11:45 GMT By Dave Cook

Bethesda VP Pete Hines has addressed the thorny issue of day-one DLC in a new interview, giving insight into why it happens from the developer side.

Speaking on the OXM podcast – the same one where he teased something new and rather epic from the studio soon – Hines suggested there was a misunderstanding among the public as to why studios produce day-one DLC.

He explained, “I think there is, at least among a certain segment of the gaming audience,” Hines began. “I don’t think they quite understand the development process and the point at which you have to stop making the game and you have to finish the game.

“So, the content people stop making new content a fair amount of time before it ships; it’s not like in the old days when it was like the day before or a week before.

“There’s a pretty long gap where your artists and designers are fixing a bug if they get one, or they may be playing the game to find bugs, but they’re not making a new anything for a long time, and you have creative people who are used to creating – so why would you make them wait some period of time, months in some cases, to start making new stuff so you can say it was after DLC?”

Does the above make sense now, or does day-one DLC always come with an air of scepticism regardless of a developer’s intent? Let us know below.

Latest

56 Comments

  1. Ristas

    Very nice graph proving the point he is trying to make:

    http://i.imgur.com/m77S3.png

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Froseidon

    Isn’t this basically what Bioware tried to say, but everyone plugged their ears as they didn’t want to hear it as they were too mad at the day 1 DLC.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. MidlifeAxe

    Makes sense to me.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. Gheritt White

    ^this.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. CyberMarco

    “So, the content people stop making new content a fair amount of time before it ships; it’s not like in the old days when it was like the day before or a week before.”

    And I think that’s the answer itself. In the previous gen of consoles, devs where working their ass to deliver a full, glitch-free, polished games so the product could be in the best state possible. But not now, we have some lames excuses just because we can deliver what was missing from the whole package with patches and DLC via the intenet. Also, how can we know that games aren’t deliberately split, from the production state, so it can be sold as DLC to amplify their profits?

    @1 Keep telling yourself that. Especially in the 3rd case. We fail to see the bigger picture of the problem here. It’s not that consumers are little spoiled brats that can’t get satisfied with anything now days (or are they?), but how the industry is flawed. We live in a capitalist world, where the goal is to make more $$$ as possible, without caring for possible risks so much.

    Now there is the excuse that if there was no separate team for Day-1 DLC, games would lack even more content.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. SplatteredHouse

    Should I care, Dave? My part in it is to obtain value for money in things I buy.
    The fact that there is any suspicion to begin with, certainly enough that day-one DLC, has joined on-disc DLC, and increasingly, various passes in the gaming Penalty Box for infractions.

    Doesn’t that tell you that something’s already gone wrong – and it isn’t developers that shoulder the responsibility, but the publishers that played their audience for suckers (if there is a general suspicion of publishing companies – why is that?), the ones that took acceptance to betray a lack of vigilance, which led to a gradual erosion of standards, dragged over ramshackle piecemeal quick-fixes to long-term problems of their fostering, that they still fail to properly address and remedy. I’m talking about parts of the gaming system that remain frozen in a pre-internet era use focus!

    Before I finish, some words from Peter Moore: “Once we get that disk installed in the tray of an Xbox or a PS3, we then look at our consumer on an ARPU [average revenue per user] basis” from the global Technology Conference last year.
    I’m supposed to believe, having seen that, that this company is not out to extract money any-which-way for content – and I’m supposed to rely on increasingly mainstream audience resistance/pushback to keep dislikable practices from gaining traction?

    @5:The console patch culture. I forgot that bad idea.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Gheritt White

    @5: I think you’re misremembering history. I don’t ever remember a time when all games were released in a fully polished, 100% bug-free, uncut state – especially not in the 90s. Does nobody remember SiN’s original release fiasco? That’s just one example, I could list loads more.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. CyberMarco

    ^ I didn’t say that games were perfect back in the day, but devs were working till last minute to deliver. Sure, there were rushed games too, but now it’s more common, it’s the rule rather than the exception

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Gheritt White

    Don’t forget that games cost many millions more to make this gen (+/- $2M-$4M for PS1, +/- $7M-$10M for PS2, +/- $20M-$30M for PS3, +/- $40M-$60M for PS4) and yet cost of boxed product to the consumer has remained static since around ’98/’99.

    Pubs and devs have to break even somehow, and the easiest way to do so without increasing the cost of boxed product is charging for residuals. That’s why you have DLC and MTX.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. CyberMarco

    ^ Same thing applies for the Movie/Music/TV industry, but it’s hard to see remotely the same tactics from their part towards the consumer. Look what happened to the music industry back in the 00′. They learned their lesson the hard way.

    And who said we must always increase costs? The market is not infinite. All in all, they exist to make money, but there is a difference from making a profit to profiteering.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. DrDamn

    @9
    Complexity and level of content has grown massively too – that really impacts testing and quality of what can be produced.

    Side point EA reckon a 5-10% rise in dev costs for PS4 … http://www.develop-online.net/news/43407/EA-predicts-development-costs-for-PS4-will-rise

    #11 2 years ago
  12. Gheritt White

    ^That probably means their current-gen games are already costing too much money to make.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. Joe Musashi

    The ‘la la la la I can hear you’ response to comprehending how aspects of game development operate isn’t really all that constructive. Neither is comparing different industries and acting as though they’re the same.

    Persistent victim complex is self-defeating. You’ll always be a victim if you choose to be one.

    JM

    #13 2 years ago
  14. ArithonUK

    The only “misunderstanding” is his short-term-profit-only viewpoint.

    Sure, sell a game at full price (@9 low price? Like Sim City or BF4 at £65? Dream on.) then milk it to death with DLC to turn a quick, short profit.

    The thing is, this “I can’t see past my nose” attitude from publishers is killing the game industry, killing creativity and making games unaffordable to produce.

    When games were released “whole” with mod support. People bought the original game at full price years afterwards in order to run it with whatever mod they favoured. By making DLC, they are keeping mods “in house”, stifling creativity and incurring greater costs themselves. With less money and time, they make less innovations and take fewer risks. No new IP’s emerge.

    Half-Life was a mod of the quake1 engine and the entire BattleField franchise came from the “Desert Combat” mod for BF1942.

    When publishers talk about a game in terms of “it’s about to be released and we have so much DLC in the pipline” I go totally cold. What they’re saying is the game is incomplete and they’re making you pay for the ending. It’s even worse with online games, such as BF3 because each “map pack” DLC splits the community into the “haves” and “have nots” meaning fewer people play on each server.

    Like blood donation for cash, they’ll get rich in the short term, but keep it up and they’ll die of blood loss eventually.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. viralshag

    I think it’s so funny when people complain about companies trying to make money. Even though what they make for us costs more and has more content yet we expect to pay the same price or less for it.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Gheritt White

    @15: At least somebody sees sense.

    @14: That’s the same price as a new N64 game. Also I don’t know of *anybody* spending £65 retail on a new game. £55 is the most, but usually people pick them up at around £40-£45 due to retailer discounts (which in turn raises the topic of price protection and buy-back guarantees, but that’s a different topic entirely).

    #16 2 years ago
  17. viralshag

    @16, I think you mean “another sheep buying into the corporate BS”… obviously.

    I still stand by the fact gaming has NEVER been as good and varied as it is now. Personally, all the “bad” things like MTs and DLC which in almost all cases either have a positive or no impact when playing the games I like is such a small price to pay.

    #17 2 years ago
  18. CyberMarco

    @15 lol, I don’t pretend to be given more content for less price, but clearly can’t stand the attitude of “we do this and that, so we can survive in this industry” forgiving any kind of methods used to achieve that.

    Personally, one thing that I’ve learned from the industry in general is that patience is gold. In the end I’m going to buy stuff that I want when I see the most reasonable pricing, to my standards, e.g. I’m not buying any non-goty version of a game with DLC until it’s offered in a complete package, not because I’m a cheap-ass but because I don’t like the tactics some pubs are using to get more $$$.

    Also, saying that a business is there to make money and every attempt to achieve that goal is forgiven is just flawed!

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6814-Companies-Exist-To-Make-Money

    #18 2 years ago
  19. Fin

    @17

    +1
    Gaming is constantly getting better. We’ve never had it so good. Anyone who disagrees is being blinded by nostalgia.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. Gheritt White

    @18: Have you seen the recent EA and Square Enix financial reports? Or the number of dev studios closed down since 2008? Not to mention Midway and THQ. Right now, videogames companies are trying to make money just to stay afloat!

    #20 2 years ago
  21. YoungZer0

    @18: The funny thing is, you can still buy the “final” version of a game for little over 20 Euros, but with most games DLC is so expensive that you eventually pay full price again.

    The worst thing for me are really map packs for MP Games. It really separates the entire community. Apart from the fact that those ‘Map packs’ are always overpriced and have less maps than your regular patch in the 90′s, how is separating the community a good idea?

    #21 2 years ago
  22. CyberMarco

    And who is to be blamed for it? The quicker they recognize how deeply the industry is going to sh*t, the better. I can’t understand why it’s hard for people to see that the industry (not only the gaming one) is killing itself. Just look at Capcom, RE 6 sold around 5 million copies, and still it failed to meet expectations.

    All I can see from this is, that the big suited men behind the companies, contributing little to non in the industry aren’t willing to let go their precious millions and that’s what is doing the most of the damage, at least IMHO.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. SplatteredHouse

    The catch about things like the patch culture/DLC is that at face value, it seems like a wonderful, almost liberating, breath of fresh air of a concept. Things can be adjusted after the game is released. If they’re short for time however, whatever is released can be adjusted (fixed) after the fact, just the same.

    With a DLC, you can get more content, games can be supported longer, and you don’t need to wait for a six-nine+ month period until an expansion pack appears (by which time you may have already “completed” and for the most part, set the game aside to play another) On the other hand, why wait for that DLC money at all? We can put it out the very same day is the base set, and reward investors all the quicker.

    Online/Season Passes give you everything for payment-in-advance (except where they don’t always – please refer to T&C, included) so an increasing (no small amount) of the game’s total content is no longer in the possession of the user, and availability is placed ENTIRELY at the whim of the publisher, and their willingness to retain servers.

    Pre-ordering gets you free stuff with your purchase, while also incentivising publishers to place an unhealthy (wait) level of importance on DAY ONE, which contributes to press embargoing, filtered impressions and feeds into demo reduction (could the content teams have previously been busied assisting in that?)

    For every give this generation has structurally introduced, in the mechanic of game “ownership”, so too has the door been left ajar, to permit taking. The developers played small, if any, part in that practice and behaviour.

    Most positive practice I noticed, is DEVELOPERS have become the more vocal in the majority of game’s cases, when it comes to supporting the games through social media, through demonstration and informing. Because unfortunately, their publisher’s focus can be set skewed away from their “level” of game.
    I wrote this, because I suppose, and believe that gaming can be better than this. I hope the gaming business as it has come to be, proves able to, as well.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. Gheritt White

    @22: Precious millions? What the ACTUAL fuck? Did you miss comment #9 where I explained how much it costs to develop a game these days? Btw, those costs do not factor in marketing, PR or post-launch support.

    #24 2 years ago
  25. Bomba Luigi

    I don’t really mind Day One DLC. And Yeah, what he says make some sense.

    But I get sick when the God Damn Day One DLC is on the God Damn Disc I bought with my Money. Explain me that Shit.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. Gheritt White

    ^This. There is no excuse for premium disc-locked content *ever*.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. Joe Musashi

    @24 Come on son, get some perspective. Companies going broke and hundreds of people losing their livelihoods is nothing. The real victims are the gamers who may have to spend a few optional bucks for some optional content.

    JM

    #27 2 years ago
  28. viralshag

    @22, I’m sorry but I just think the “greedy men in suits” theory is silly. Yeah, they get paid a lot but I think it’s a stretch to say game development is slave labour and they’re evil men laughing all the way to the bank.

    Like #20 said, they’re not exactly rolling in money and the salaries of execs will not be what is bringing down the industry as a whole. Poor management of money, time and resources certainly sounds more realistic to me.

    I just don’t think the industry has correctly adjusted themselves to handle the increase in man power and time required to create these games. Not to mention they seem to have loose wallets when it comes to advertising and marketing.

    #28 2 years ago
  29. CyberMarco

    @27 Again, who is to be blamed for that? This phenomena isn’t only common in the gaming industry, but in every business that follows the capitalist suit, it’s destined to recession.

    As it seems I’m the minority here that thinks that way, so be it. I never stated that the problem here is that gamers aren’t satisfied by these tactics for their luxurious pass-time but by how the industry works.

    Also, nice of you people putting words in other people’s mouth that never where said…

    #29 2 years ago
  30. DSB

    @27 You think that’s an effective way of growing your market? Simply loading your product down with even more expenses?

    I think it’s tragic that no one in the industry seems to really understand how self-destructive that is. Games should be making themselves more attractive, not less.

    #30 2 years ago
  31. YoungZer0

    @30: Well, CD Projekt Red seems to get it. They have a very loyal fanbase, respect them, ask for feedback and they thrive.

    All DLC for Witcher 2 was for free. And they even released a huge patch with new modes, new difficulty levels, reworked endings, new quests, huge fixes that the community asked for.

    Also Witcher 3 isn’t going to have any DRM.

    Those fools!

    #31 2 years ago
  32. Sadismek

    @31 I second that, CD Projekt RED are ace, but the sad fact is that you can count guys and gals like them on your fingers.

    Many developers turn into mindless corporations, it seems. They keep on making the same ol’ mistakes, and even when bad sales and poor reviews how them something’s wrong, they just don’t get it.

    EA, Activision and Ubisoft pop into my mind. Too bad about the latter, as it still makes some fairly acceptable games, but their way of treating customers (and some franchises *ahem* AC *ahem*) is horrendous.

    #32 2 years ago
  33. Gheritt White

    @30: Actually, DLC is a way of covering costs and, to a lesser extent, incremental revenue. MTX and F2P are ways of expanding your market (for core games, at least).

    @31: I don’t know how they do it, really I don’t. Must be venture capital money.

    #33 2 years ago
  34. salarta

    Day-one DLC existing makes sense to me. Manufacturing and shipping a game takes time. There may be bugs that need to be fixed that, if it had to be included on the disc, would cause a delay for the game that may not be necessary. And creators always feel like they want more time to make the product as best as can be.

    But I do NOT agree with the idea of day-one DLC requiring extra payment. What, the team behind that day-one DLC magically can’t be paid from the same budget used to make the main game? Is that team eating bread crumbs every day until people can buy the team’s DLC on the day of the game’s release?

    Consumers having to pay for later post-release DLC actually makes sense because that DLC is made after the game itself is released, when companies involved may get new funds from the game’s sales. If the company has the money to make the DLC to launch with the game’s release, then it shouldn’t need extra money from consumers beyond what they’re paying for the game’s release. This is especially heinous when it’s something stupidly minor, like getting a new weapon, or unlocking access to a character that can be unlocked if you just play the game.

    So, the practice of day-one DLC existing is fine, but having to pay for that day-one DLC is not.

    #34 2 years ago
  35. DSB

    @33 MTX doesn’t seem to be working very well. EA are calling it a victory because people used them in Dead Space 3, while completely ignoring the fact that they delivered a commercial failure.

    DLC I can understand. At least that’s a product, even if that product is mostly halfassed content.

    MTX is just trash for money. It’s not something that ever held any actual value, it’s just another case of publishers trying to force a product that no one is asking for.

    I’m not interested in having my games chopped into itty bitty pieces because someone suddenly decides they should be paid for a weapon skin or virtual currency. I’ll buy a more complete product instead.

    #35 2 years ago
  36. Gheritt White

    @35: MTX is full-price retail games will always be seen as a rip-off (although I would have gladly paid for extra lockpicks in BioShock: Infinite rather than rummage around through all the bins).

    MTX in F2P is an absolute necessity.

    #36 2 years ago
  37. DSB

    @36 Oh, I thought you were referring to MTX as a general thing.

    Definitely, I have no problem with F2P.

    #37 2 years ago
  38. Gheritt White

    Of course, the reason why you don’t have these so-called shitty practices with indie games is that total cost of development is nowhere near AAA blockbuster levels.

    #38 2 years ago
  39. ArithonUK

    @Gheritt White #16 – The “limited edition” of Sim City and the preorder for BF4 both have a price tag of £65 and a start price of £45. Check your facts.

    @Fin #19 Gaming from the big four is constantly going downhill. We’ve never seen it so bad. Putting your head in the sand can’t change the facts. Look at Aliens: Colonial Marines or Sim City for the most recent debacles.

    Tomb Raider and Hitman:Absolution are reasonable games (although not great) and have been declared under-performers and may not recover costs, having sold 3M copies+, yet an expanding market is out there – MineCraft has sold in excess of 10M copies on a single platform. The sales figures don’t back your claim. The big publishers are in decline and so is the quality of their products. The original Tomb Raider sold 8M copies making a $14M profit and Hitman:Silent Assassin sold 3.7M copies, the most successful Hitman to date. So are mediocre (or worse) games sold at a high price, for a loss, “the best ever”? For who? The administrators?

    This is why so many people are using KickStarter to buy (and develop) games; because the main publishers are obsessed with expensive production of a narrow range of sequel IP’s with no innovation.

    #39 2 years ago
  40. Cobra951

    @5: You said just about what I was going to say. That *is* the answer. Things *have* changed in development, for the worse. It’s not a misconception from the consumer side.

    #40 2 years ago
  41. roadkill

    Well if this is all true then what’s going on is that the game is ready at “day 1″ which means content to me and then there’s the DLC ready at “day 1″ which again is content to me. So why do I not get all the content at day 1? Why do I get only a part of it? I’m paying a certain amount of money and I get an incomplete product. This is how I see it. ESPECIALLY with the case of Mass Effect. That’s why piracy is good. Or used game sales. You (the publishers) try to f**k us up? We will f**k you up back! The days when I used to buy your games at day 1 even though I had so few money in my pockets are gone!

    #41 2 years ago
  42. Gheritt White

    @39: Yeah, £45 like I said. Nobody forces you to pay for the premium edition.

    Also, to call TR a “reasonable” game is absurd. It’s so many orders of magnitude more technologically complex and refined than the original TR it’s ridiculous. If you put the original TR in its original state on consoles these days, people would think the devs were having a laugh.

    And it’s easy to pick out two shitty modern examples. There were loads of shit games back in the day too. More, in fact, because the cost barriers to entry in getting a game out the door was so much lower. These days, though, we also get BioShock Infinite and Portal 2.

    If, however, you want to carry on playing blocky, difficult-to-control, 32-bit games (feature complete with zero DLC or MTX and free cheat codes), nobody is stopping you. Me? I like my new, shiny AAA blockbuster releases. I’m just aware how much they cost to make and the how much they *ought* to be sold for.

    #42 2 years ago
  43. Gheritt White

    @41: Oh great advocate piracy, because videogames are such a necessity in your life. You know what a necessity is in mine? Food and rent. I’ve been made redundant before when we lost £300K’s worth of revenue to a Hotline server, so please, go fuck yourself.

    #43 2 years ago
  44. salarta

    @9: The price of games has not remained static since the 90s. This gen introduced video games jumping from $50 to $60 on average. There were some complaints, but most people accepted it because they knew that the price was due for an increase given inflation.

    @15: Actually, the average game time has diminished. We used to get games that lasted for at minimum 20 hours, often more. Today, the average is more like 10 hours. We’ve also by and large lost the element in games of secret levels, secret characters, hidden storylines, etc. All of that has been changed so that people have to pay extra for it. Now, 10 hours for $60 comes out to essentially $6 per hour, which some might consider fairly cheap considering buying a film is usually about $20. But the point is that prices are rising, while the value gained from those prices is falling, contrary to this false idea that prices have been stable since the 90s and we’re somehow getting more content for our money.

    @19: We actually did have it better in the past, and that’s not nostalgia talking. While the industry has always been obsessed with quality of graphics, the actual games were approached with far more creativity and affection in general. That’s not to suggest that all developers today lack creativity or love for what they do, only that there was a LOT more freedom and desire to make the most of the medium for the medium’s sake in that regard. Today, a lot of what happens is dictated by what will sell more copies, and there are suits that only think of games as a source of revenue and nothing else that make big decisions that were originally the domain of the development teams. And as noted above, we got more play time and content for our money in the past compared to what we get today on average.

    #44 2 years ago
  45. viralshag

    @39, How do low sales prove anything? Bioshock Infinite hasn’t even broken 3 million copies to my knowledge… is that a bad game too?

    #45 2 years ago
  46. Gheritt White

    @44: Given inflation? How about cost of production?

    #46 2 years ago
  47. The Last Nomad

    After reading this I’m a little less annoyed when games come with DAy one DLC, but its the nature of the DLC that pisses me off more than anything.

    I’m going to use the 2 games I’m playing right now as examples because they are damn fine examples. The first is Fallout New Vegas, I picked up a used copy for a tenner (I had planned to buy the Ultimate edition on ebay for about 30 but i made a stoned impulse buy – went for quick and cheap entertainment as opposed to waiting for a better more expensive purchase in the long run), A fabulous game except for the issue of DLC. I had researched a lot about new Vegas before buying it and knew alot about the nature of the DLC and what each one was. And man is that game filled with references to the DLC. I hadn’t even left Goodsprings (the beginning area) without people mentioning interesting things about Burned men and the previous courier Ulysess (Characters and story of the DLC). This makes me feel like im really missing out on important things in the game. As if these DLCs were planned way before the game was made and then the developer thought, lets leave them out for DLC. Which is ludacris, if you have a good idea for something in the game, just put it in the fucking game. This isnt the worst example of things being taken out for DLC (as the game is still huge enough) but its an example all the same.

    Now the other game is Risen 2 (which I also bought in a stoned impulse buy a couple of days ago – I should really stop going into gamestop when I’m high and have money). It has the DLC sin of having a big sign on the cover saying “Extra content – Download it to play more of this game” or whatever is said, something about an air temple. I’m not so far in the game, but it doesn’t seem like I’m going to be missing out on anything important, story or gameplay-wise. It seems like this might be more like the kinda DLC Hines is talking about.

    Although maybe I’m just pissed about day one DLC because I don’t have wireless broadband at home and have no access to DLC other than through ultimate/GotY editions of games.

    #47 2 years ago
  48. Gheritt White

    @47: “Although maybe I’m just pissed about day one DLC because I don’t have wireless broadband at home and have no access to DLC other than through ultimate/GotY editions of games.”

    You see, *this* is a valid point.

    #48 2 years ago
  49. DrDamn

    @44
    “@15: Actually, the average game time has diminished. We used to get games that lasted for at minimum 20 hours, often more. Today, the average is more like 10 hours.”

    When was this? What games? There have always been long and short games. Compare like with like though. Today you get a lot more variety in how you play. Compare modes and variations in racers, fighting games for example.

    “This gen introduced video games jumping from $50 to $60 on average.”

    This gen introduced XBLA and PSN in a big way. Great games can be had for a wide range of prices from low to high. The *only* option used to be £50 on consoles. Now I’ve had fantastic value from titles under £10

    #49 2 years ago
  50. fearmonkey

    I don’t mind day one DLC like Dragon Age:Origns did with the Stone prisoner. You bought the game, you got the DLC free. You rented it, you had to pay for it, im cool with that.

    The opposite of that is when they unlock DLC off the disk, or that they have DLC day one where its really integral to the past games story line like what they did with the promethean DLC for Mass effect 3. That was a pure money grab, if they would have made it like the stone prisoner, it would have been fair.

    #50 2 years ago
  51. fps_d0minat0r

    so “the content people stop making content”…and they are useless at fixing bugs (as proven, if you played the game).
    so why should gamers cover that cost, and then have to pay extra for the DLC they make in a rush to launch it with the game on day 1?

    #51 2 years ago
  52. roadkill

    @49 He might be comparing say.. Unreal with Battlefield. Unreal’s single player was so long while Battlefield’s is not.

    @50 “That was a pure money grab, if they would have made it like the stone prisoner, it would have been fair.” Spot on. It’s just P/R b/s that these companies throw at us. The sad thing is that some idiots actually believe it.. :(

    #52 2 years ago
  53. DrDamn

    @52
    Why not Unreal with BioShock Infinite? Both about 10 hours for the main story. Or maybe Doom? That was a whole three and a half hours. Its probably best to conveniently ignore stuff like SpecOps and Zombies in CoD games, and Horde mode and coop features in Uncharted as they mess up the whole modern games are short thing too.

    #53 2 years ago
  54. Shuklar

    Wow…the boss talks as poorly as their developers code. So many better ways to say what he was trying to get out.

    #54 2 years ago
  55. zinc

    I’m a PSN+ member, so can’t really moan about DLC. All those free games I get each month are only secured by Sony, because the pubs are banking on me buying *some* of the DLC.

    After all, their not doing it because they love Sony are they? And today I traded in a couple of games to pick up a pre-owned copy of Bioshock Infinite. Zero profit to Irrational, but they’ll be releasing DLC sometime which I’ll pick up & so help them earn some money for future games.

    And yes, if the DLC had been day one I’d have probably checked it out. Personally I think the main problem, is that some DLC is just shit, frankly, with little chance to know exactly what your getting.

    #55 2 years ago
  56. Liberi

    If there is so much time left after the development, why in the blue hell the ‘day one dlc’ are not included with the original content? This is BS… day one dlc and season pass codes are just another way to milk money from us…

    #56 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.