Which game do you think is the winner of this holiday season?

Wednesday 4 July 2012

DLC the Future of Gaming


DLC Playstation Store


Recently I have been playing Skyrim: Dawnguard and Civ V: Gods and Kings, both good DLCs in a world of mixed output.  With the advent of online consoles has come one addition to the hobby that is both a blessing and curse.  DLC (downloadable content) began on consoles with the Dreamcast and Xbox but, since the advent of large hard drives and broadband internet on the 360 and PS3 has become a completely necessary income stream for almost all developers.  Gamespot journalist Guy Cocker recently stated that DLC was his worst 'advance' of the current console generation and I have to agree in large.  Here are some of the good and the bad of the DLC history.

The Good


Some meaty DLC has released over the years for a variety of games.  Most of the good DLC is lengthy and adds a large amount of new content.  Adding content that hasn't been possible in the history of gaming is a good thing.

GTA IV's The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony both added lengthy, new stories and new weapons to the excellent 2009 game.  They came in 6 month intervals after the release (timed exclusively to 360, more on that later) and they weighed in at a fairly weighty 1600 MS Points (around £12).  In similar hefty story DLC, Bethesda released the Dawnguard expansion for Skyrim.  Adding a new story, game area and weapons amongst other things to Skyrim it is certainly on the good end of the spectrum but weighing in at 1600 MS Points, my first few hours have been slightly disappointing.  This could be because Skyrim is so incredibly generous with its content (that I doubt many have completely finished) that it's hard to be overly impressed by what is offered.  Also from Rockstar was Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare.  A DLC that offered a whole new story, game areas and completely new play style to the Wild West epic.

Also something positive about the much-maligned EA (really)!  The recent Euro 2012 tournament would normally have brought a full game with a full price tag to UK and European stores.  In an interesting change EA released the Euro 2012 tournament as DLC for last year's Fifa 12.  At a pretty reasonable £15.99 (1800 MS points) added stadiums, kits, commentary, game modes and a Euro 2012 skin to the game.  I have to admit to not having played it but believe it is a reasonable addition that is certainly better than the full retail World Cup games of the past.

The Bad


Most of the bad for me can be summed up in one (long) word - microtransactions.  Games companies, and perhaps gamers, seem to be convinced that spending a small amount on something fairly useless or pointless is quick and impulsive.  It is a system that has worked to great effect on the App Store and iTunes where 69p games are bought in huge quantities.  I'm not writing about whether the business side of it makes sense, I'm wondering whether it is good for gaming. 

From the infamous horse armour to costumes for everything in many games microtransactions exist in most games in some form or another.  A recent piece of work by Gamesradar.com, showed that buying everything for PS3 hit Little Big Planet 2 weights in at an astonishing £304.65.  How much of this content could have (should have) been included in the original game or at a vastly cheaper cost?  Is this purely about monetising and exploiting hardened fans of any series.  The release of map packs has become regular big business for the likes of Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 and the recent influx of 'Elite' season pass systems means charging in excess £35 for an unspecified number of map packs and various other advantages.  Without the access to map packs it can create something of a haves and have nots society on line and for those who want to be included in clans and groups the pressure to buy is large.  The upcoming Fifa 13 is set to trial micro DLC by charging customers to download classic kits amongst other things.  Unnecessary but certainly something that taps in to a fans desires.

On disc 'DLC' is another controversial aspect currently hitting the gaming industry.  Capcom sparked controversy when admitting that 'downloadable' characters were actually included on the disc and unlocked on purchase of a download code.  Whilst the anger around this centred around paying for something that had already been bought, I think people missed the wider problem.  Capcom aren't going to start giving these characters away, they are simply going to not include them on the disc and then release them as genuine DLC in future.  The wider issue is the holding back of finished content to release it at a later date.  Where is the line with this?  Ridge Racer Vita released at a reduced price and you bought the content you wanted.  Buying all of this content meant that the game eventually weighed in at a regular Vita game price (£30.84) and I guess there is an argument for buying the game you want, tailored to your desires.  This is a confusing addition for more casual gamers however and perhaps serves to make gaming more hardcore in an age of more casual games.

The final bad for me is exclusivity of releases.  Again I'm sure that this makes great business sense for Microsoft and Sony but can leave consumers left out.  Many consumers can only afford one console and the idea of timed exclusive content for a game that is out for multiple consoles it does cause me some concern and widen the console divide. 

Overview


DLC is here to stay.  It makes too much money for publishers for it to go anwhere and sadly microtransactions and 'freemium' gaming (free game and paid microtransactions) might become an increasingly regular business model. Freemium is already regular on mobile games and Cevat Yerli CEO of Farcry and Crysis developer Crytek, believes that free to play games are the future.  Microtransactions will be necessary to compete in most games.  Will this lead to a total cost that out weighs the current off the shelf cost of games?  If it does, will it be a development that kills the industry as people feel that they can't compete unless they're willing or able to pay lots of money? 

I'm already concerned by the direction single-player, story based gaming is going as online multiplayer becomes a more important business model to combat trade-in.  If companies are able to make huge amounts of money by releasing identikit, microtransaction based games then what will the future hold for single player or offline experiences? 

As always, your thoughts about free to play games would be appreciated and replied to.

No comments:

Post a Comment