DLC will be free or not? Vote your opinion!

[Fizix]

How much is the DLC for forza ?? 67% want to pay for there DLC haha you got more money than brains.

Not really.

If DLC is free then the only incentive PD have to create more DLC is to please the community.

If DLC is paid and it sells well then there is a financial incentive to create more DLC.

I want to pay for it and want it to sell well so that they create more DLC in the future and not once in a blue moon.

 

[nik0s]

DLC paid otherwise why call it DLC -could have been just part of the Spec2 update.

 

[Negrumir]

If the DLC was free they would just put it in the free update.

Pretty much the only thing that needs to be said.

 

[XxTH3_ST1GxX]

uh... just putting in some common sense. if it were free, it would be part of the 2.0 Update. a DLC download wouldn't be necessary.

 

[pb5]

Hi

It should be free as the basic gt5 is less than gt4 in terms of the amount of content you get (off line). Even the pics used for most events was the same as gt4.

I'm willing to pay a small fee once I know it's worth it, but if it aint I wont bother. I'm not interested in more nascars as they are pretty much all the same.

Paul

 

[sny_pher]

Hi all,

No offence intended to those who believe otherwise, but why do some gamers (I'm thinking a significant minority?) 'willingly' pay for DLC?

This just encourages developers not to release 'complete' games (I'm not talking about bug fixes and patches here). IMO, the DLC released by PD would not constitute a 'significantly' new game, so if it were indeed monetised, it does not seem right. As pb5 (Paul) so succinctly put it, in regard to the upcoming GT5 DLC, it "should be free as the basic gt5 is less than gt4 in terms of the amount of content you get (off line). Even the pics used for most events was the same as gt4."

I know that everyone has a different opinion on this (ie DLC), but we'd be, I would venture, doing ourselves as gamers no favours if we so willingly pay for DLC (not just for GT5, if it indeed pans out that way, but for all other games). Imagine in a couple of years - a generic core game may have a few levels only, and you would need to pay for everything else, be it weapons/upgrades/other thingamajics..of which were core to the gaming experience only a few years back but now need to be paid for separately.

 

[Disco_Mikey]

I voted for free, in the hope I was with the majority, and hopefully Kaz would have seen it, and made it free...

I have a gut feeling it will be paid however.

Whether I buy and packs remains to be seen. Depends what content is included I guess...

 

[vcx]

Actually some of us paid signature edition some of paid collector's edition. Some of paid just only for car packs....Moreover we deserve free content because PD has to make us pleased. Totally we paid too much things for 70% finished game. We waited 5 years and we expected 100% game. So PD must give DLC free to us. We did everything what we must do. Now this is PD turn. I think...

 

[Dan_]

It has to be paid, otherwise it's pretty hard to believe that a software company would put money into making something that wouldn't generate more money. It's illogical to give DLC for free.

Paying for it also boost the odds of getting a better quality end-product, since it has to be good to sell in reasonable quantities and be worth of the development costs.

 

[vcx]

when DLC released free, everybody will download it, when DLC released paid first of all GT fans will look inside the DLC and try to find out what they will get from it, If they feel ok then will buy it but if some GT fans don't like the content they won't buy it. Even free update+free DLC will affect people to buy GT5 who don't buy the game yet. So the game price more than DLC price. More GT5 selling equals more money for PD, average acceptable DLC will face low sellings.

 

[will4noobs]

if its paid, then itll be worth paying for and wont be stupidly overpriced. unlike ****** COD map packs.

 

[sny_pher]

It has to be paid, otherwise it's pretty hard to believe that a software company would put money into making something that wouldn't generate more money. It's illogical to give DLC for free.

Paying for it also boost the odds of getting a better quality end-product, since it has to be good to sell in reasonable quantities and be worth of the development costs.

Hi Dan,

Thanks very much for sharing your views. Actually, that is precisely my point - the game company could be deliberately not including the content in the initial release, and planned to release it as a DLC instead, so that they can generate more money (at a price level which I feel is exorbitant, compared to what if it were included as part of the initial release). It is perhaps more akin to making gamers pay for content which they should already have paid for when they purchase the initial release?

Having never worked in the industry before, I can only speculate - but I believe that the key driving forces behind the DLC concept is to generate a disproportionate amount out of gamers by stripping features out from the main game that would, or should, have reasonably been included otherwise.

In a nutshell, generally, my view is that DLC seems to be a 'negative' concept, where elements are deliberately excluded from the initial release so that it can be monetised at a future date, and not a 'positive' concept, where additions are made (perhaps out of creative goodwill and/or inspiration?) that would not have reasonably been included in the initial release.

Example of a 'negative' concept for DLC releases: "What can we strip out from the initial release so we can charge gamers a separate fee?"

Example of a 'positive concept for DLC releases: After the release, "what can we do more to further enhance the (already extensive) gameplay experience, which we had not have the opportunity to include previously, or had no budget to do so?"

While it is difficult to prove whether the DLC is a 'negative', deliberate exclusion or a 'positive' post-release inspiration, my gut feel is that most companies are functioning on the 'negative' concept. Case in point - the fact that quite alot of DLC for various games is released very early on in the game's lifecycle suggests, to me at least, that the 'negative' concept is more widespread (the ridiculously overcharged EA car packs in the NFS series, expansion campaigns in Dragons Age / Dragons Age II etc). It seems highly unlikely that additional gameplay experiences can be ready for release early in the game's lifecycle. As a side note, if the core game in itself is quite limited, then my opinion is more often than not, the negative concept is in play. Not saying that PD would be going down the same path (and I really hope not!!!) as the negative examples, but the risk is there.

 

[Turtle]

I want it to be free but I think it will have to be paid for.

 

[mmpotroast]

What DLC is ever free? With the way this game has had major issues, and still does, I will definitely not be giving PD any of my money. I could care less about a few extra tracks. I could care less about most of the things included in the update, too. The only thing that matters is in-race saving.

 

[Dan_]

@sny_pher's snip.

Excellent post, very moderate and thoughtful. 👍

I agree with you though, there is some questioning to be made through the ethos around DLC. Complex paid content released shortly after the main title is somewhat startling to me, why didn't they employ those resources into making the main game's assets? That would fit perfectly into your 'negative DLC' theory.

There is however a counterpoint to be made, games are usually a product, they're sold once and no more money can be milked of them until a whole new title is out. That increases the risks in the overall project, mining resources to mitigate them and restraining more advanced and daring paths through the development cycle, leading to new technologies and breakthtroughs in graphics and playability more infrequent.

The steady flow of cash provided by DLC also gives companies much more confidence in updating and improving their products, and also helps to consolidate the customer base through feedback-driven development.

DLC has so many good influence on a game franchise that it actually overcomes the burden of having to pay for it. I'm actually pretty excited that PD is apparently taking this path. 👍

 

[Senojelyk]

If it hasn't been announced as "part" of the Spec II update, my wild guess is that we'll have to pay for DLC.

This ^

Why release a huge update and then DLC... if it was free why not just keep em together?

 

[Bobby-Vegas]

should be free for those who bought the signature edition, and paid to all the others

Easy for you to say living in Europe, North America did not have a Signature Edition. Your statement is stupid and ignorant.

 

[Bludragon]

I got a feeling it'll be a mix of free and paid...

i agree with this statement. I think by simply calling it DLC tho it imples one would pay for it, otherwise, it'd be called a patch or update. But since we already have a boatload of suits and helmets, I can't see paying for a 'Racing Suit Pack', however, I will pay for a 'Course Pack' and Race Car Pack'.

 

[Brock1Samson9]

The DLC will be paid. If they were going to make it free then why wouldn't it just be a part of the spec 2 update?

 

[Gix7Fifty]

Yep you will have to pay for DLC, I would not want it any other way. Come on have you ever gotten anything good that was free???

 

[ilikewaffles11]

Yep you will have to pay for DLC, I would not want it any other way. Come on have you ever gotten anything good that was free???

Need for Speed Shift team racing pack was free and got me a nice MK4 Supra.

 

[Gix7Fifty]

Need for Speed Shift team racing pack was free and got me a nice MK4 Supra.

OMG that is because you paid for NFS, they felt bad.
And... I went to Dennys on my birthday and got a free grand slam, I can't believe people pay for that! And it did not include a drink!

 

[Thomas2012]

Why did you write Right you own opinion its ofcourse most people will say it should be free

 

[shirakawaa]

The DLC will be paid. If they were going to make it free then why wouldn't it just be a part of the spec 2 update?

They could do that for several reasons:

- Avoid PSN bandwidth congestion, since it's optional
- As an appetizer for future paid DLC
- To avoid clogging users' PS3 hard disks with unnecessary (for basic online functionalities) additional gigabytes of data

 

[vcx]

Ok I read all the comments and according to these comments I found the solution.

PD must give same DLC in these conditions:

-FREE for who doesn't want to pay for DLC
-PAID for who wants to pay for DLC

Just free/paid button enough for it to download:tup:

Because some fans are really want to pay money for DLC, if they want to do this PD must let them to buy it. vice versa for the fans who wants free....

 

[SlyckTires]

Hi Dan,

Thanks very much for sharing your views. Actually, that is precisely my point - the game company could be deliberately not including the content in the initial release, and planned to release it as a DLC instead, so that they can generate more money (at a price level which I feel is exorbitant, compared to what if it were included as part of the initial release). It is perhaps more akin to making gamers pay for content which they should already have paid for when they purchase the initial release?

Having never worked in the industry before, I can only speculate - but I believe that the key driving forces behind the DLC concept is to generate a disproportionate amount out of gamers by stripping features out from the main game that would, or should, have reasonably been included otherwise.

In a nutshell, generally, my view is that DLC seems to be a 'negative' concept, where elements are deliberately excluded from the initial release so that it can be monetised at a future date, and not a 'positive' concept, where additions are made (perhaps out of creative goodwill and/or inspiration?) that would not have reasonably been included in the initial release.

Example of a 'negative' concept for DLC releases: "What can we strip out from the initial release so we can charge gamers a separate fee?"

Example of a 'positive concept for DLC releases: After the release, "what can we do more to further enhance the (already extensive) gameplay experience, which we had not have the opportunity to include previously, or had no budget to do so?"

While it is difficult to prove whether the DLC is a 'negative', deliberate exclusion or a 'positive' post-release inspiration, my gut feel is that most companies are functioning on the 'negative' concept. Case in point - the fact that quite alot of DLC for various games is released very early on in the game's lifecycle suggests, to me at least, that the 'negative' concept is more widespread (the ridiculously overcharged EA car packs in the NFS series, expansion campaigns in Dragons Age / Dragons Age II etc). It seems highly unlikely that additional gameplay experiences can be ready for release early in the game's lifecycle. As a side note, if the core game in itself is quite limited, then my opinion is more often than not, the negative concept is in play. Not saying that PD would be going down the same path (and I really hope not!!!) as the negative examples, but the risk is there.

I reckon that you can tell them apart by the time between the original release and the DLC. The shorter the time, the more likely it is to fit into the 'negative' category. That being said, you'd have to suppose GT5 DLC is therefore 'positive' (or just trying to attract attention away from FM4)

 

[sny_pher]

I reckon that you can tell them apart by the time between the original release and the DLC. The shorter the time, the more likely it is to fit into the 'negative' category. That being said, you'd have to suppose GT5 DLC is therefore 'positive' (or just trying to attract attention away from FM4)

Hi SlyckTires,

Good points! =) I think we just have to hope that it is not priced exorbitantly..

 

[robzombie1230]

Like someone some posts before mine did, i also tried to translate Kaz's tweet

"・・と、こんな感じです。無料アップデートの一週間後のDLCにはレースカーパックやコースパック、レーシングギアパックなどを準備中です。それはまた次の機会にお知らせします。連投すみませんでした。"

This site http://translation.babylon.com/japanese/to-english/ gave me following result:

It is ・ / such a feeling. I am preparing for a race car pack and a course pack, a racing gear pack in DLC one week after the update free. I inform it of it again at the next opportunity. Taking mound consecutively is sorry.

Another one http://de.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt this here:

With, it is such feeling. The race/lace car pack and the course pack and the racing gear pack etc it is quasi- Bicchu in DLC of one week later of no charge update. In addition that we inform the following opportunity. Connected throwing it was not completed.

...ok the last isn't such a good translation but well....

Maybe the one week difference is because they didn't manage to pass the DLC parallel to the Spec 2.0 Update. What i mean is: Long time before i read about a patch for GTA4 on pc, and that it first had to pass some administrative regulations before released to the public. Maybe here it is something equal....don't nail me but it translates you twice free/no charge...

EDIT....you can put it like this -.- :I am preparing for a race car pack and a course pack, a racing gear pack in DLC one week after the free update boing

 

[sny_pher]

@sny_pher's snip.

Excellent post, very moderate and thoughtful. 👍

I agree with you though, there is some questioning to be made through the ethos around DLC. Complex paid content released shortly after the main title is somewhat startling to me, why didn't they employ those resources into making the main game's assets? That would fit perfectly into your 'negative DLC' theory.

There is however a counterpoint to be made, games are usually a product, they're sold once and no more money can be milked of them until a whole new title is out. That increases the risks in the overall project, mining resources to mitigate them and restraining more advanced and daring paths through the development cycle, leading to new technologies and breakthtroughs in graphics and playability more infrequent.

The steady flow of cash provided by DLC also gives companies much more confidence in updating and improving their products, and also helps to consolidate the customer base through feedback-driven development.

DLC has so many good influence on a game franchise that it actually overcomes the burden of having to pay for it. I'm actually pretty excited that PD is apparently taking this path. 👍

Thanks Dan for your views! Regarding your points about risk, they reminded me alot of the lessons learnt during corporate finance classes - real options, decision trees etc. One interesting issue brought up during a lesson was that let's assume there is a project with negative NPV (net present value) evaluated only at a single state (ie just an initial release and no more). However, if the project is given options to expand in future (ie DLC), if you consider the value of the options, it may make the project commercially viable. Of course, the premise (at least for me) is that the DLC is done honestly and properly, without charging gamers exorbitantly.

Ok, now back on topic! =)

 

[shirakawaa]

Why are you quoting him in Japanese when he tweeted that in English as well?