69
70

Reminder to Square-Enix: DLC done right. (i.redd.it)

Rattenkermis が 投稿

全 39 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TheLogicalErudite 42ポイント43ポイント  (29子コメント)

Witcher 3 is probably one of my top games of all time, and I love CDPR approach to DLC.

That being said, this stuff was a lot of "patch worthy" updates that they labeled at DLC to get free publicity in a market of paid DLC hating fiends.

The two paid DLCs are awesome and worth every penny though. B&W is basically a game all its own.

They did it right in every technical way, but marketed it strangely. Why label these as DLC? They're just add-ons that a lot of games would simply include in major patches.

[–]jbourne0129 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

  • new quests
  • new weapons
  • new armor
  • new looks/costumes for characters

These are all definitely things others would have made you pay for. Deus Ex made a lot of similar items pre-order bonus material. Labeling that stuff in TW3 as DLC makes every gamer around the world excited like Christmas morning because its free "DLC".

If that stuff was 'patched' into the game, it would have received way less attention.

[–]hbalck 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are good marketing practices and there are bad marketing practices. Square Enix's choices are exemplary of the bad with what they've done with this storied and cherished franchise.

CDPR's approach to their DLC releases was brilliant marketing. It was marketing, through and through. It had the desired result. They could have charged two bucks for each of the DLC's but they chose not to charge for them, deliberately. By doing so they improved public perception of the game and company from good to exemplary. They also nearly guaranteed that every single customer purchased the expansion packs.

I'd say it was pretty damn successful. They are the yardstick by which everyone is measured now.

[–]TheLogicalErudite 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly.

Hopefully in their future releases (Cyberpunk, looking at you) they stick the model and don't succumb to the temptation of quick money for extra content.

[–]TheLogicalErudite 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Which is exactly my point. They used it as a marketing tactic, which I don't know if I agree with.

It definitely worked, and its definitely clever on their end, but is it good practice? If the goal is more sales, which it is, then yes. But if the goal is moral upstanding then it becomes foggy.

[–]jbourne0129 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

DLC was free, I think that earned them all the morals they need. its so unbelievably rare to have a company release much of any DLC for free, yet CDPR released a LOT of dlc for free.

We can only be soo picky about developers. There are so many crappy companies ripping off gamers. If a dev wants to release free DLC and milk the crap out of the publicity of doing so, then so be it. It can only benefit us as gamers.

[–]TheLogicalErudite 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As I said in the original post, I have no problems with CDPR. They're my favorite developers at the moment. I'm actually overly excited about Cyberpunk 2077, which is still in just announced no one knows what is mode.

[–]hbalck 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

What is marketing, exactly? Have you ever applied for a job? Then you have engaged in marketing. There isn't anything wrong with it in an of itself. What determines the good or bad is how it is carried out and whether or not it is dishonest.

[–]TheLogicalErudite 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly.

For me though, I'm not sure how "honest" it was to claim they are delivering 17 free DLCs in the advertising for the product, and have them be small add-ons. Is it mis-leading to call them that? Especially since they hid the content of the DLCs until a week before they released each one (over the course of a few months). To me it's a lot like saying "Free dozen cookies" and when you receive them they're an inch in diameter. Sure they didn't technically lie, but you would say its a bit misleading, no?

It's a minor squabble about semantics and intention, but in the end its insignificant, their end product was great and worth the price.

[–]tetracycloide 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So far the same could be said about all the existing Mankind Divided DLC too though. Except for the weapon, consumables, skill point, and money packs which CDPR simply never would have put in their game.

[–]Leonick91 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This. The free DLC were patch worthy at best and at worst felt like stuff that should have just been in the game (and frankly was probably intended to).

The expansions on the other hand are amazing and is exactly what DLC should be. Let's give Eidos and Square a chance to show what their story DLC is and ignore the silly microtransactions, they're stupid (especially single use pre-order/seasonpass bonuses) but far from needed.

If someone wants to buy that crap, let them, if you don't just ignore it. So long as the game hasn't been balance to make you buy it (which it clearly hasn't) what's the problem?

[–]crazyjackal 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

TES Oblivion's Horse Armor was paid DLC. Most of the TW3 items are equivalent to that. They are DLC. The 2 items that aren't free are expansions.

Back in the day, that's how the terms used to be differentiated. DLC was small add-on like content. Expansions were large content additions to the game.

Then franchises started to blur it with map packs for FPS games and calling them DLC and similar things.

[–]TheLogicalErudite 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Do you remember the horse armor community response? It wasn't pretty...

back in the day

Exactly. The terms have evolved since then. There's a longer post on this attached to another comment I made.

[–]Crumpgazing 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just look at how much people pay for skins in games now.

We were all so naive when Horse Armor came out. I can't believe how quickly things turned around.

[–]crazyjackal -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

I read your longer reply. I'd still disagree personally. I'm sure it's different for everyone. I know a majority of my mates would agree with my stance on this.

I would still define the TW3 content as DLC. Regardless of payment.

Expansions to me are large content packs. So for TW3, it's those 2 paid for content items. For Fallout 4, it's Nuka World and Far Harbour. The other items that came with Fallout 4's season pass just fall under DLC to me such as the settlement workshop addons.

I do not put new skins, extra armour, etc. under patches. Those generally fall under the term DLC for me.

Patches to me are what they sound like. Things being patched up. So updates to the game that redo balance or statistics. Overwatch changes are mostly patches which redo the balance of its heros.

Hotfixes are quick small fixes being done and released immediately to fix immediate issues whether those issues came out in a patch or release day.

DLC is very much an umbrella term for me and my friends and that's because it just means Downloadable Content. The term does not dictate a minimum size. It can encompass content that ranges from new skins, new characters, new armour, new weapons, new maps to complete expansions.

[–]TheLogicalErudite 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think its very dependent on when you started gaming, and what games you played.

But yea in the end its an argument about semantics so it's all kind of pointless.

[–]luc424 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

you do know what DLC stands for right, they are Down Loadable Content, every single item listed is Downloadable content that you need to download. How else would you label it? Add on that you need to download to access its contents?

[–]TheLogicalErudite 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

Well, in gaming, much like in life, the literal meaning of a word gets lost in the culture.

Expansion packs, DLC, and patch updates, are all different things despite being the exact same; changes to the game made through a download.

DLC has this implication of being paid extra content, like an expansion pack or map pack. Patches are much smaller, or they are "behind the scene" fixes. So a patch may add a new ability to a tree for a specific class, or nerf damage from an ability, or whatever.

So when they call it DLC, they're marketing it as "we could sell this to you, but we're not." When they could just include it in a patch for free, and the same result is met. These are extremely small upgrades (most, I think there are a few quests), most are aesthetics though.

Why create this label of "we're giving you free things we should be selling" when its understood that in this generation of gaming patch notes with updates and small content are the norm, not the exception. They did it for the publicity and marketing. Sure they could have labeled it 1.99 a pop and sold it on a marketplace. But on the other end they could have included it in later patches much more quietly, instead of marketing the game as "17 Free DLCs!" Which is a bit misleading conisdering the size and content, and most peoples thoughts when they hear "DLC" is not a small add-on, but actual substantial content.

That all being said, I'm okay with it, because the content was good, and the paid DLC expansions were well worth the price, and I love the game.

[–]luc424 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

DLC having the implication of being paid content is what CDPR was trying to act against. They are going back to the Ye Olde Days of where DLC just meant you download it. In this time and age where DLC is now equal to paid content, its easy to see how marketing took it as an positive spin. If I am in Marketing, I would do it as well, the good out weight the bad in publicity due to all they wanted was to give it to you for free like the old days.

[–]TheLogicalErudite 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's absolutely brilliant on their end, and it achieved the goal. Free publicity for something you were going to do anyways simply by labeling something slightly different. That's the only point i'm really trying to make.

[–]AlexZebol 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wrong. DLC stands for DOWNLOADABLE content. It is not necessarily paid. It is just a way of distribution - via digital download.

[–]TheLogicalErudite 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right but I'm talking about the implied connection the market will make with to the term. Which is "paid for and substantial".

[–]Crumpgazing 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't be so pedantic. He's not wrong, you're too literal.

[–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Crumpgazing 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Yeah but it was not always that way.

    Doesn't matter. It is viewed that way now, that's what does matter. That's the point /u/TheLogicalErudite is trying to make and y'all are weirdly opposed to that.

    [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]Crumpgazing 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Dude, I get that. We all get that. That's the literal point that /u/TheLogicalErudite was making! No one disagrees with you at all on that front.

      What I'm saying is that pedantically telling someone to use an outdated version of the terminology helps no one. It's just pointless, semantic infighting. You know what DLC means nowadays, you know what people mean when they say it. If you want good DLC, support games with good DLC, don't support the ones with bad DLC. Real simple stuff.

      [–]TheLogicalErudite 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This is seriously the problem. Everyone is telling me "that's not what DLC is", but it is to the market. Maybe not to you individually, but its how the market generally approaches the concept.

      So whether you disagree or not is irrelevant, because its not how its seen over a wide group of people they're appealing to.

      [–]Delsana 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      To be fair the free dlc wasn't all that interesting or valuable but they did deliver it way before the paid dlc. I'm afraid of what the paid dlc and exclusive pre order missions for this game will end up as.

      [–]Rattenkermis[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you completely.

      I used The Witcher because it was the first example that came to mind. My intention here wasn't to praise CDPR or The Witcher per se, but rather to post that list of DLC's / add-ons which are provided freely (save for the larger ones, HoS and B&W) to give an addition to the game, without the constraints of a paywall or preordering.

      Simply put: Above screengrab shows several DLC's / add-ons which grant extra weapons (crossbow) or armor. These additions are offered for free. DXMD currently already has two payable DLC's (for me: €4.99 each) which offer weapons, ammo, augs, ... That's a lot of money for what it is.

      Add to that the microtransactions and whatnot... It's a way of selling products I can't agree to.

      [–]rodinj 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      How is this DLC done right? These could have been included with updates instead of calling them DLC

      [–]Leonick91 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Kind of amazing that you're being downvoted for this. Had the even charge 0.10$ each for those free DLC that's exactly what people would have said.

      It's quite obvious a lot of it was simply cut out of the game. I ran in to areas that felt like they were made for a quest but nothing there... Weeks later, free DLC adding the quest to that place.

      Wolf school armor as DLC, as if that wasn't planed for the game itself.

      The two expansions are amazing and is exactly what DLC should be but the praise for the free stuff is just silly.

      [–]Rattenkermis[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yes, you're right, they could have been. Rather they have been added later as free "DLC" / "add-on".

      Unlike DXMD, which now already asks €4.99 (atleast in my country) for "DLC" (Assault Pack, Tactical Pack) which is hardly more than what was offered for free in the above screenshot, or which other companies patch in later.

      That's what I meant with "DLC done right": If it's something small, cosmetic, weapon-y, armor-y, ... don't build a payable DLC out of it and don't make people cough up (a lot of) money. Also, don't hide stuff behind a paywall (cfr. augmentations).

      (I also don't see how you got downvoted for a legitimate question; so have my upvote.)