No DLC

[CaptainPatch]

What people seem to forget that the #1 priority of a business is to make money. If it doesn't make money (and it's not getting government subsidies), it goes out of business. Game companies are no different from other companies in that regard. Where there is a potential for variation is in the acceptable Profit Margin the company requires. It's somewhat possible for a company to work on a "labor of love", and produce its product and sell it AT COST. What is _highly_ unlikely is that a company will deliberately produce a product and knowingly sell it at a loss. And if you ever want to see future products from that company, then it MUST make a significant Profit in order to fund the next project.

What has got to be the primary reason that people hate DLC -- which specifically means "DownLoadable Content", which technically "digital distribution", but by usage some/many people have taken to giving DLC only _one_ interpretation -- is because they feel, justifiably, that they are getting ripped off. Either by 1) the manufacturer has deliberately held back content strictly so it can sell the DLC separately at a higher price/content than the core content, or 2) by NOT passing on the saving of digital vs hard copy to the customer. IF the cost of making a hard copy of a game is, say $20 and the retail is $60, then the Revenue (NOT Profit) is $40. Now if the cost of a digital version is only $5, then the company couldafford to sell that digital download for $45 and it would _still_ be making the exact same amount of Revenue as it does on hard copy sales. Unfortunately, it seems that manufacturers have decided to NOT pass savings on to their customers. And what they are doing -- selling the digital downloads at close to or just as much as what is charged for hard copies -- certainly feels like being ripped off.

So, when people start chanting, "No D, L, C!" it isn't what is in the DLC; it's the fact that they feel they WILL be ripped off one way or another.

IF a DLC were to be _given_ to the customers, free of charge, who would still be complaining? If those cost savings -- sell a game for $45 as a digital download instead of the hard copy price of $60 -- who would complain? (Besides the hard copy people demanding that their more cost-intensive version should retail at the same price as the cheaper cost DLC that is.)

[krellen]

What people seem to forget that the #1 priority of a business is to make money.

False.

The #1 priority of a business is whatever the business creator wants it to be. Making money is a common goal, and a more common requirement, but it is not - and should not - be the #1 priority. Would you describe your #1 priority as "eating"? Is eating the most important thing in your life? Why do people persist in arguing points of business as if business is a starving beast that cannot think of any higher goal than its next meal?

[Infinitron]

What people seem to forget that the #1 priority of a business is to make money.

False.

The #1 priority of a business is whatever the business creator wants it to be. Making money is a common goal, and a more common requirement, but it is not - and should not - be the #1 priority. Would you describe your #1 priority as "eating"? Is eating the most important thing in your life? Why do people persist in arguing points of business as if business is a starving beast that cannot think of any higher goal than its next meal?

Correct. For example, a privately owned business (ie, one not beholden to shareholders) like inXile can decide that its goal is to make the kind of product the owner likes, while making just enough money to pay its employees' salaries.

And indeed, Brian has spoken about wanting to make RPGs for the next decade (until his retirement, basically).

Now, during good times, this strategy might fail, because your employees might defect to a more profit-oriented company that can afford to pay them higher wages. But with today's economy - not to mention the many known horrors of working for an AAA game publisher - that's not as big of a problem.

[Barentsoya]

I like good DLC. I liked the Batman: AC DLC. I loved the Borderlands DLC. I'm all for good DLC. Let's have some of that.

[CaptainPatch]

krellen & Infinitron.

What happens if the money isn't there? If all the expenses and overhead is there, but NOTHING is coming in? Do the products get made? Do the products get shipped? Where does the money come to pay salaries? How do workers feed their families if there are no paychecks? Where did the money come that pays those checks.

Businesses that get their operational funding from a source other than the sale of products or services are Charitable foundations (which are usually funded by somebody to get tax deductions). A business either makes and sells things, or provides services which are sold. HOW MUCH money a business requires can and does vary according to what kind of Return On Investment Management deems appropriate. If the enterprise is NOT making that specified Return On Investment, it goes _out_ of business, sooner or later. It occasionally happens that a business will deliberately operate at a loss, hoping that the business grows enough to several years later balance out those losses. (This is in fact usually factored into nearly all new businesses.) But at the end of the year, if the business did NOT make a certain minimum in Revenue, it WILL go out of business. And the Corporate Graveyard is well-carpeted with the bones of businesses that failed to make their dollar quota. This is why making money is the #1 priority. If they _don't_ make that money, none of their other priorities will be reached either.

[krellen]

So you do consider eating your #1 priority? After all, if you don't eat, you can't do anything else, either.

[Drool]

If you don't breathe, you can't eat. Bam!

[CaptainPatch]

So you do consider eating your #1 priority? After all, if you don't eat, you can't do anything else, either.

And you too, Drool.

There's this thing called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs) that delineates where in the scheme of things the factors in your Life are ranked. YES, eating and breathing are basic needs. THEY MUST BE SATISFIED before you can begin to hope to reach your goals in life. For a business entity, "eating and breathing" comes in the form of money in. If the money isn't there, you don't get to do the things that you _want_ to do.

[krellen]

You're avoiding the question, Patch. I know all about the hierarchy of needs. You are acting like all businesses are ravening beasts who don't have any food and are not allowed to think of any other needs before food because of this. I maintain that businesses are as complex as people (being made up of people), and most of them are not so starved as to need to put basic survival as their primary, utmost priority. The only people that consider "survival" to be their top priority are those living in the deepest of misery. Do you maintain that all businesses are so poverty-stricken as to be likened to them?

No one would make the argument that a man has to eat, so he has to nickel and dime people to death on everything he produces and can never produce anything without recompense. Why do people think this is then a good argument when talking about business?

[Drool]

Well, with a publicly traded company, then kind of have to: the have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profit. But inXile's privately held, so that doesn't matter so much.

[krellen]

Well, with a publicly traded company, then kind of have to: the have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profit.

Actually, they do not. This is the ultimate fallacy of business schools; there is no legal precedent saying such, and there is no legal statute stipulating this. A publicly traded company exists for whatever purpose the board and the shareholders wish.

(I'll also note that "shareholder value" does not mean either "profit" or "money", either.)

[abdiel420]

All this talk of business is fascinating, but there is a difference between legitimate DLC and trying to fleece the customer. For example, Mass Effect 3's story heavily references optional (and some could argue overpriced) DLC. If a person decided they didn't want to pay $10 more dollars for an hour or two of extra gameplay they might not understand why Shepard blew up a Mass Relay. Day one DLC is another shady tactic to give games a price bump from $60 to $70. If it is on the disc it is not technically DLC. Worse yet, it means they would have had to spend a good amount of time developing the extra content while still working on the main game. Work doesn't stop on a production until a game goes Gold, and after that point nothing can be added to the disc. That being said, true DLC that offers a significant return on the money spent by the player is most welcome. They used to be called 'Expansions', for you older gamers out there.

[superman]

Let's all stop calling it DLC, because, let's face it, it's not "downloadable content", it's actually mini content patches filling the niche of microtransactions that do nothing except line the developers pockets with extra money - it's rarely ever worth what they charge.

Back in the day these were released in huge patches called EXPANSION PACKS. We need to return to this idea of it and forget the term DLC ever existed.

That said, I'd be all for a fan funded expansion pack for Wasteland 2 once it's been out for a while.

[Drool]

They're called DLC because they're distributed digitally; you download them. Just because some developers use them to wring money out of players doesn't mean that's all they are. Old World Blues was amazing content, and it was DLC.

[CaptainPatch]

You're avoiding the question, Patch. I know all about the hierarchy of needs. You are acting like all businesses are ravening beasts who don't have any food and are not allowed to think of any other needs before food because of this. I maintain that businesses are as complex as people (being made up of people), and most of them are not so starved as to need to put basic survival as their primary, utmost priority. The only people that consider "survival" to be their top priority are those living in the deepest of misery. Do you maintain that all businesses are so poverty-stricken as to be likened to them?

The "ravening beasts" portrayal is your interpretation. My stipulation is that ALL _functional_ businesses require money to operate. That money has got to come from somewhere: Either someone _gives_ the company money for whatever reason -- like say some 60+ thousand people handing $3 mil to inXile -- or the company needs to generate at least enough in sales to meet its expenses. If the money isn't there, the creditors close in, the landlord padlocks the door, etc. Essentially, the business goes out of business, because of a lack of money.

Because of the need for money to operate, a company has to have a steady cashflow coming in. That money is one of or a combination of 1) ongoing sales, 2) donations, or 3) loans. In the case of a company that does NOT have a product to sell yet, the first choice goes away. Pre-orders are effectively loans that will be paid for when the final product is delivered. If the donations aren't there, then all that remains are loans. How does a business get loans? It needs to demonstrate that it WILL generate enough in sales one the product is released, and when it does, the negotiation looks like something like, "We will need ______ million dollars to bring the product to Market, but when it arrives we stand to earn 2 x ( or 3 x, or 4 x) _______. Lend us _______ and we will be able to pay you back with ___% interest."

The reason outfits like EA and Activision have managed to ruin so many games is because when the banks have refused to give such a loan, EA steps up and says, "We'll give you that loan, but you will have to do a number of things the way we tell you." (Yes, they are essentially loan sharks.) Part of "do it our way" is to charge all that the Market will bear, and charge for _everything_. When it boils down to do as directed or don't get a loan, most developers cave to the pressure. This is why most DLC carries a hefty price tag, why there are Day One DLCs, and why games show up on time but in desperate need for umpteen patches. The next time you note that the prices are steep and the DLC content is whack, take a look at who funded the project. Odds favor that for that game, the developer had sold its soul to the Devil (EA, Activision, etc.) The developers may be the most good-hearted, well-meaning bunch of people, but those decisions are no longer entirely under their control.

Anyway, back on point: To operate, a business needs money. Not enough money, the business goes out of business. Failure to secure adequate funds and there is a distinct probability that the company collapses before reaching the FINISH line. In which case, NO goals are reached.

[Klimy]

DLC is stands for "DownLoadeble Content". I'm not sure, but if they will make a full scale expension and then distribute it only in digital form, then it will also count as DLC (correct me if Im wrong here).

So I have no problem with this. As long as DLC is just a mean to bring us new content, and not a way to milk a cow

[Drool]

You aren't wrong, DLC just has dirty connotations because some companies have released crap DLC. Much like many sneer at TV and Film licensed tie-in games because 90% of them are complete and utter rubbish.

[CaptainPatch]

You aren't wrong, DLC just has dirty connotations because some companies have released crap DLC. Much like many sneer at TV and Film licensed tie-in games because 90% of them are complete and utter rubbish.

What ^^he^^ said. That was one of the points I was trying to make before I started running off at the fingertips.

[snakeoil]

the crowd funding is a whole new style of video gaming business, it comes from people being sick with getting used as cash cows by stuff like DLCs and micro transaction.

i see myself as a person giving brian fargo and inxile money and trust to make their living for the next 18 months to create a game that fulfills or exceeds my expectations. if they dont hit that goal, they will not be supported by me again, if they hit this goal they can make mistakes in the future and i will still keep supporting them for more than just wasteland. crowd funding surely is a tough thing for a developer but if you are mature as a human this can be a irresistable challange worth the time spent.

[Mandemon]

I don't mind 10€ DLC that adds as much content as F:NV DLCs, like Old World Blues, Lonesome Road, Dead Money etc.

Then there are of course 2-3 bucks DLCs that just add items.

As for an expansion that is size of all 3 DLCs combines, I am ready to pay a lot more. But I wouldn't pay more than 10 bucks for Old World Blues or Dead Money and such.