Sections

People no longer hate DLC, according to Ubisoft

Monday, 7th July 2014 19:07 GMT By Sherif Saed

People have grown more accustomed to having DLC in their games and paying for it, and no longer refuse the concept of paying small fees for bite-sized pieces of content, at least according to Ubisoft’s VP of digital publishing.

assassins_creed_unity

Speaking to Gamesindustry International Ubisoft’s VP of digital publishing Chris Early said, “I think there are some models that are accepted now, DLC is pretty much accepted. Season pass is pretty much accepted.

“There was no resistance, maybe there were 12 guys somewhere who said something, but whatever. As a whole, there wasn’t a problem.

“Now it’s interesting when you start to think of Season Pass as a Service Pass. For our Season Pass holders, I know we hold events for them specifically, so it’s little bit more than just DLC content. So there’s an evolution going on there.”

Early added that game design that doesn’t make you feel like you’re getting locked out of content is the way forward, and it’s part of the reason reason why the DLC adoption is on the rise.

“Where it hurts is when you feel like you’re forced, or you’re at a disadvantage or can’t do it unless you [pay money], that’s kind of a remorseful feeling, and nobody likes that.

“Good design, that’s what it comes down to.”

Thanks, PCGamesN.

Latest

22 Comments

  1. Xflasher

    that is complete bullshit, especially coming from Ubi, one of the worst companies to adopt the DLC plan by removing content from games before theyre even out and charging extra for it.
    fuck you ubi

    #1 4 months ago
  2. Capt.N00P

    Am not from the “People”

    #2 4 months ago
  3. bugmenot

    yeah, now people hate Ubisoft as much as EA

    #3 4 months ago
  4. Legendaryboss

    Ubisoft in this regard is pretty much spot on, if you apply the scenarios they mentioned to correct instances.

    #4 4 months ago
  5. Takeshi

    I haven’t paid for a season pass for any Ubisoft game yet. Only Batman: Origins, Darksiders 2 and Titanfall, and even then most of them was for a discount. I’ve definitely started to be more open to season passes, but they definitely need to provide value than I feel is equivalent to the price they’re asking for.

    I think they’re really bad at developing good DLC, sure, FC4 and Unity may prove me wrong, but if not, won’t be missing out on anything.

    #5 4 months ago
  6. _LarZen_

    I don’t hate it…I just like it or support it. I think I have bought 2 DLC’s in all the years this has been a normal practice.

    What I however hate is F2P.

    #6 4 months ago
  7. thegrimmling

    Missing missions – Check
    Missing features – Check
    Missing Characters – Check
    Holding the consumer’s wallet ransom – Priceless

    #7 4 months ago
  8. Ge0force

    I have accepted the fact that I’m done buying “incomplete” games with loads of DLC or season passes. I ignore those games, or I buy the complete edition later at reduced price. But I don’t think it’s an “evolution” tbh…

    #8 4 months ago
  9. TD_Monstrous69

    I’ve got no problem with DLC or season passes. As long the content behind it is compelling, and is a true expansion of the experience (examples: Bioshock Infinite: Burial At Sea and The Last of Us: Left Behind). Also, I’m gonna reach out on a limb, be Mr. Unpopular, and say Chris Early is right.

    #9 4 months ago
  10. yeoung

    Personally I have nothing against the concept of DLC, then again, I haven’t ever purchased any of it either. Plus as mentioned above, there’s enough examples of DLC that’s done well to merit the concept; Far Cry; Blood Dragon, inFamous: Festival of blood, Dishonored the something of Draug or somesuch..

    Even the out of left field stuff can be good, if priced accordingly. The Metal Gear database, the Infamous character creator thing, etc.

    Equal parts design and business-consumer ethics.

    #10 4 months ago
  11. salarta

    Hahaha what.

    People are more accepting of very, very specific kinds of DLC. It has to be DLC you can conceivably believe the team needs more time to finalize and tweak to make sure it works right, and MAYBE preorder DLC that isn’t too critical to the experience of the game (whether it’s a major gameplay mechanic or a piece of story). Outside that, no, DLC isn’t accepted. Most people hate seeing an attempt to bilk money out of people by withholding character as day one DLC, stupid crap like weapon skins, “extra levels” and items you throw some bucks on to make the game easier, or major game components that should’ve been bundled in with the main game.

    Folklore and Valkyria Chronicles are my examples of good DLC. Folklore provided story missions, new costumes, new Folks and whole new NPCs all together in one package for $3-4. Valkyria Chronicles actually built their DLC based on fan feedback on what they wanted to see, something that they could not have done until people played the game.

    #11 4 months ago
  12. Untold stories

    The way he said it was spot on. I don’t mind dlc if it’s done right.

    #12 4 months ago
  13. Rosseu

    DLC that was obviously done during the production of the game and was omitted from the final product so they can put it up as DLC? No.

    #13 4 months ago
  14. zombizmo

    “Evolution”
    “Special Events”

    None of these describe the DLC they have ever put out as part of their, “service pass.”

    #14 4 months ago
  15. thegrimmling

    Accepting most major publisher’s DLC strategy as being “good and fair” should be classified as a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

    #15 4 months ago
  16. Darksider123

    Obviously, I’m no longer considered people

    #16 4 months ago
  17. Dragon

    No wonder, knee jerk reactions galore.
    “Where it hurts is when you feel like you’re forced, or you’re at a disadvantage or can’t do it unless you [pay money], that’s kind of a remorseful feeling, and nobody likes that.”

    “Good design, that’s what it comes down to.”

    Yeah, what is wrong with that? DLC as a model for games have been accepted. If people feel they are getting value for money, they buy it. If people love the game, they may be inclined to try out more stuff, and dlc helps with that.

    #17 4 months ago
  18. silkvg247

    hahaha, that’s hilarious. The only people who ever got “DLC” right were Blizzard and their gargantuan expansions. Everyone else be like.. yo dude I give you this shit that was already on the disc for 5 quid.. that ok?

    #18 4 months ago
  19. antraxsuicide

    He’s largely correct. If DLC wasn’t popular, then it wouldn’t sell, and then publishers wouldn’t offer it. They do offer it because it sells. Ergo, it’s popular.

    Even small day one DLC is okay if it’s just cosmetic stuff, or a slightly better starting weapon or something like that. But I do feel a bit stiffed when a game has substantial DLC on day one that was very clearly cut from the original product. That’s some BS.

    #19 4 months ago
  20. salarta

    @antraxsuicide I find Arc System Works to be an absolutely terrible offender when it comes to Blazblue. I don’t care how little time a person has in his or her life to play video games (the excuse used), if they’re not willing to actually play the game for the one hour it takes to unlock something unlockable on any difficulty level, they’re doing it wrong. And wasting $40-60.

    #20 4 months ago
  21. TheWulf

    I’ve never hated DLC. I hated Oblivion’s DLC with good reason.

    It all depends on how exploitative versus fair the DLC is. If it’s content they’ve removed from the game to resell at a ridiculous price, or if it is ridiculously priced for a tiny amount of content, or if it’s somehow necessary to know some context of the game’s story that you’ll miss out on otherwise and it’s exorbitantly priced, then I won’t like it.

    I think that’s a common notion amongst thinkers. It’s not DLC we dislike, it’s exploitation. Same goes with freemium. It’s not freemium we dislike, but how rife exploitation is as a part of freemium.

    Oblivion’s DLC was some of the most exploitative out there, EA has also been known for exploitative DLC, especially as part of the Mass Effect series. So that’s really not cool at all.

    Sometimes, if I think a DLC is too exploitative, I’ll just watch it on Youtube or whatnot. I’ll vote with my wallet.

    Though, sometimes, the DLC is completely fair for the price and genuinely adds a lot to the game. To see DLC done right, look no further than New Vegas. The DLC of New Vegas, except for Blood Money (which was questionable), was perfect. Old World Blues was, quite frankly, possibly the best DLC I’ve ever played, for anything, ever.

    Not only that, but the New Vegas DLC had their own self-contained storyline which had nothing to do with the main storyline of the game itself. So it wasn’t holding content back from the game to resell it to you, it was telling you an entirely new story. And that story was episodic across the DLCs, but you didn’t need all of the DLCs to actually enjoy it. It was a sublime presentation, and I wish other developers would look upon it as the way to create DLC.

    The Saints Row IV story DLC was pretty damned good for the price, too. For exactly the same reason as above. They told their own stories, they didn’t hold anything back from the base game, and the price was okay for what they were.

    If DLC is cosmetic and has nothing to add to the game beyond that, then sometimes I’ll buy it just to support the developer. I did that with Saints Row IV. So long as it’s only DLC and it doesn’t impart new mechanics, or some plot element which isn’t in the game itself, then I don’t see that as exploitation. Here is what we’re offering, here is the price, pay or don’t.

    Sometimes, DLC feels like the tip jar, you know? If you bought the game, and then felt that you had such a good time with it that it was genuinely worth more than the amount you paid for it (maybe you got it in a sale?), then you can get some DLC. But demanding DLC via exploitation by holding back content? That’s how you make me NOT buy your DLC, ever.

    You can sell me cosmetic DLC, you can sell me new story DLC, but you can’t sell me DLC that the base game feels incomplete without.

    The best example of this was Oblivion’s horse armour. Of course I’m going to start there, because that’s the beginning.

    The horse armour should have been a part of the base game, the base game was less without it, and in times past that would have been a patch to add new content into the game. It felt like a cynical exclusion to raise more money. Now, if they’d included horse armours in the game, and then opted to sell more horse armours which were completely cosmetic, then I would have been entirely okay with that. But they didn’t do that, did they? No, they tried to exploit people instead.

    And it was such a stupid form of exploitation! People who liked Oblivion would have happily paid for new cosmetics! But, instead, you try and force them to pay for a new feature that should have been in the game by default, that could have been patched in, and as such you gain their ire instead of their support and money! I’m sure a lot of people did buy it, but it’ll go down in infamy as one of the worst examples of exploitative DLCs. Is that worth it?

    So, yeah. If it’s a fair price for what it is, it’s not exploitative and all, I’m fine with it. New Vegas showed me that DLC definitely has worth. And the Saints Row IV story DLC did much to cement that idea.

    If everyone could take a page out of that book, I’d be happy. I’d be a DLC fan.

    #21 4 months ago
  22. Llewelyn_MT

    I accept your DLC and Season Pass. Just don’t expect me to buy it.

    #22 4 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.