Post-Release Support for Racing Games: A Blessing or Hindrance?

[GTPNewsWire]

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

Post-Release Support for Racing Games: A Blessing or Hindrance?
As more titles outline their support cycles before release, we take a look at post-release DLC.

This article was published by Brendan Rorrison (@Brend) on November 30th, 2016 in the Features category.

 

[MisterWaffles]

The amount of DLC in racing games is getting quite ridiculous recently. I remember when games used to have 200-600 cars at launch, now it's down to 100-200 at launch with over $50 worth of DLC on top of the base price just to get a decent car list.

 

[AudiMan2011]

If done right, then lots of post release support is a very good thing. However, blatantly cutting out content that is clearly ready to go on Day One to sell as launch DLC smacks of money grabbing.

 

[88c-v Racer]

I'd be ok with DLC of a few cars, but I'm not ok with the way Forza has been going lately. It says right on the info page for the DLC that there will be two expansion areas (not much info on those besides one is snow and some cars) and an additional 42 cars across all the car packs. Before even getting to the expansion it's already an additional $60 to get all the DLC cars/car pass and the VIP Pass, that's ridiculous. I hate not having all the content but this time around it's just so expensive, I'm not really sure what I'll do..

 

[Praggia]

Also besides the money already being spent on DLC, some countries lag way behind when it comes to the cost of bandwidth. Here in South Africa it is ridiculously expensive and the DLC packs and game updates are huge. So it costs players a lot more than just the price of the DLC itself. Factor in that here new titles now exceed the 1000 bucks mark and that is quite a bit to pay for something that is "half finished" or lacks content.

How do they justify the prices of DLC packs when the pack is the same price as the full game but yet the pack is NOT a full game, it's just an add on ??

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

DLC is a cancer to racing games, especially those featuring Porsche where you could be paying £20 every year to re-buy the same cars over and over again. The Driveclub season pass gets it right with almost 40 cars for £5, PCARS would've been good value too if the content wasn't rubbish. However games like Assetto Corsa and especially Forza are abusing their customers with the pricing (Just look at the NASCAR pack, $20 for 3 cars and 1 circuit).

 

[Outspacer]

On the day of release, the Car Pass and VIP Membership were available for purchase at £25 and £15 respectively for a combined total of £40 — roughly the price of the game. The third installment also included a Forza Motorsport All-Stars pack at launch for £8. Between them, the passes would offer 57 cars with the VIP membership also offering nominal perks like in-game wheelspins and exclusive events. In terms of substantial content, this works out at just under £1 per car so the core value is definitely there.

I disagree. Base game was 350+ cars for £50 = less than 15p per car, or 7 cars per £1. Even less if you factor in the map, apparently £15 or so worth.
(And now it's discounted to half that, vs. no discount on the DLC).

And yet, if I owned FH3, I know I'd want to buy them anyway. So I just factor that in = FH3 is an expensive game, that I'm not prepared to pay for.

 

[ImaRobot]

In my opinion, A game that revolves around cars and/or racing can never be "complete" in relation to car roster. You can't just wait to keep getting cars in, eventually a line will have to be drawn, and what is in it will have to be shipped. I'm not against DLC for racing games in most cases(bar FM5, that was a bunch of rehashes. Although, it having to meet a deadline with the Xbox One Launch, I guess that can't be helped.) I skipped out on all of the Season passes all the way up until FM6, and that so far has been the best bang for buck. FH3 so far is half and half, although I'm not entirely disappointed, yet.

I think the problems I might potentially have with DLC is the expansion pass mentioned for FH3. One is Blizzard Island, which sounds interesting, but the cars that come with it aren't really piquing my interest, and the eventual Porsche expansion coming after. The Porsche packs have been relatively similar ever since release, which at first wasn't entirely horrible as it was a jump from past gen to current, but now three games into this generation, It'll be nice if they'd offer something substantially different. If not, I'll skip it all together.

I'm not one that has the "I have to have everything!" Mentality. The base game was fine for me, but I jumped into the Ultimate in hopes that it matches up to what was previously released on FM6. That's why I have a tendency to approach each DLC(racing game or otherwise) with as much information as I can, that way I can decide if its worth my money or not. If I enjoy the game enough, I don't have a problem purchasing DLC, as long as it's interesting enough on its own.

The Driveclub season pass gets it right with almost 40 cars for £5, PCARS would've been good value too if the content wasn't rubbish. However games like Assetto Corsa and especially Forza are abusing their customers with the pricing (Just look at the NASCAR pack, $20 for 3 cars and 1 circuit).

From what I'm reading, wasn't the Driveclub season pass £20? That's not much cheaper than what Forza offered. Outside of that, though, DC's support has looked amazing, but like mentioned, that can be due to the problems it had in the beginning. Expansion packs are a whole different issue though, like you mention. The Porsche pack, being the same price as that Nascar pack, seemed much better but at the same time it was nothing relatively new.

I disagree. Base game was 350+ cars for £50 = less than 15p per car, or 7 cars per £1.
(And now it's discounted to half that, vs. no discount on the DLC).

That price seems to be industry standard. $1 per car is pretty cheap, but if your in the situation where you're contemplating the price and the necessity of it, then your best bet would be to save money all together and avoid these optional aspects of the game. Video gaming is a far from a cheap hobby(in my past 20 years of gaming I'm certain I've spent a pretty penny). I'm surprised people are barely noticing that.

Not every single piece of extra content is needed to enjoy the base game(s) in most cases, and that goes for any genre. Just approach every instance objectively and make comparisons with it and other games, or even with the base game before purchase.

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

From what I'm reading, wasn't the Driveclub season pass £20? That's not much cheaper than what Forza offered. Outside of that, though, DC's support has looked amazing, but like mentioned, that can be due to the problems it had in the beginning. Expansion packs are a whole different issue though, like you mention. The Porsche pack, being the same price as that Nascar pack, seemed much better but at the same time it was nothing relatively new.

I'm not sure how much it cost new, it was £5 when I bought it and is £10 now. I think that's another problem with DLC (and games on the digital store in general), the price never changes. If you buy a game which is a year old from amazon it will be down to £10-20 - roughly half price, any DLC will usually stay at the launch price until the day it's removed.

 

[ImaRobot]

I'm not sure how much it cost new, it was £5 when I bought it and is £10 now. I think that's another problem with DLC (and games on the digital store in general), the price never changes. If you buy a game which is a year old from amazon it will be down to £10-20 - roughly half price, any DLC will usually stay at the launch price until the day it's removed.

If you're talking about the price quite a while down the line, there is obviously going to be a price difference. At that point, the price for a brand new games season pass shouldn't be compared to a games current price for a season pass that came out 2 years ago.

As for the digital store for games, they certainly do change in price, otherwise Dragon Age: Inquisition would still be $60~ digitally. As for DLC, I agree with you on that, but sales happen so often on older DLC that its not that serious a problem. I bought my Porsche expansion for $5. Heck, even in your reply to me you already acknowledge that the price has changed, with it being £5 before, and £10 currently.

 

[RacingPanda]

Just went on quite a rant and I thought it'd be best to delete all of it.

To sum up what I was initially going to say: DLCs are fine, but the devs are using them all wrong. They shouldn't be treated as another cash grab (looking at you, PG and T10) and they shouldn't force people into buying DLCs (looking at you, Kunos Simulazioni).
BF3 was quite a good example of how to do it, if you feel the need to release a season pass - Premium was released 1/2 - 3/4 yrs after the initial game release - right at the point where people thought they'd seen it all and been through it all.
Or, if we're going to mention racing games - pCARS and GT5 did a great job at keeping the community in one piece despite some not owning the neccessary DLCs. To even allow to try out some of the content (although I'm still not sure if being able to drive on DLC circuits on GT5 for some time was an accident or not) is not only a great way to keep the community glued together, but it is also a great marketing tool (well we got to look at it from a dev's point of view, too).

 

[ImaRobot]

To sum up what I was initially going to say: DLCs are fine, but the devs are using them all wrong. They shouldn't be treated as another cash grab (looking at you, PG and T10) and they shouldn't force people into buying DLCs (looking at you, Kunos Simulazioni).

Cash grabbing techniques are not isolated to those two, as PD have been a part of that as well. Single use paint chips? That was a bit absurd, but it seems everyone seems to forget about that. I don't have a problem with Post-release DLC, but what I hate the most about PG and T10 is their day one DLC. Although, in the past iterations they've released a good amount of Free content so it balances it out for me. .

pCARS and GT5 did a great job at keeping the community in one piece despite some not owning the neccessary DLCs. To even allow to try out some of the content (although I'm still not sure if being able to drive on DLC circuits on GT5 for some time was an accident or not) is not only a great way to keep the community glued together, but it is also a great marketing tool (well we got to look at it from a dev's point of view, too).

I agree with that. All to often games release DLC packs and split the community up even more, in the beginning. Afterwards the DLC-restricted rooms really do dwindle though,(BF and Ghost recon being noticeable ones to me) so I think the ones losing out really are the ones that purchase those packs.

 

[RacingPanda]

Cash grabbing techniques are not isolated to those two

Not at all, I definitely should've clarified that. I just mentioned them because they are the two most recent examples - after all, GT5s DLCs were released in 2011 or 2012? It's feels like it has been quite a long time.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

The amount of DLC in racing games is getting quite ridiculous recently. I remember when games used to have 200-600 cars at launch, now it's down to 100-200 at launch with over $50 worth of DLC on top of the base price just to get a decent car list.

To be fair, FM6 launched with 460 cars last year. FM7 will probably launch with 600 or so, so long as T10 doesn't cut out cars from the previous iteration. Scorpio muddies the water a bit: it depends on what exactly the plan is with it (assuming FM7 is a launch title). It looks like Forza will be the only title launching with 200+ cars. Maybe PCARS 2 will, but that's about it. Previous generations had more cars, but asset creation takes a lot more time these days.

Then again, plenty of us assumed GT Sport would use Polyphony's "made for PS4" Premium cars, and that turned out to not be the case. I'd like to think T10 will keep the XB1 assets for the next generation too (since they have full interior and partial under-the-skin modelling). That's the biggest setback for the genre moving from one generation to the next: asset (re)creation.

If done right, then lots of post release support is a very good thing. However, blatantly cutting out content that is clearly ready to go on Day One to sell as launch DLC smacks of money grabbing.

It's a tough line to walk, IMO. Personally, I don't mind "Premium Editions" or other things like that — FH3's VIP cars, for example. Yeah, they're locked behind a pay wall — but that's acceptable for so many other types of products. I could've bought my iMac with no updates, but I paid a premium to get a better package. There's Collector Editions of movies, too, with special features that aren't available in a base-line Blu-Ray.

Also besides the money already being spent on DLC, some countries lag way behind when it comes to the cost of bandwidth. Here in South Africa it is ridiculously expensive and the DLC packs and game updates are huge. So it costs players a lot more than just the price of the DLC itself. Factor in that here new titles now exceed the 1000 bucks mark and that is quite a bit to pay for something that is "half finished" or lacks content.

Outrageous internet costs aren't really the developers' faults, though, and are unlikely to be an issue for the majority of their target markets, unfortunately.

How do they justify the prices of DLC packs when the pack is the same price as the full game but yet the pack is NOT a full game, it's just an add on ??

I imagine the justify it based on the cost to make the content, versus the revenue generated. If enough people are buying these add-ons, the plan will continue. If this approach wasn't profitable, it'd probably stop.

I've merged your posts: please don't double-post, that's what the Edit button is for. 👍

DLC is a cancer to racing games, especially those featuring Porsche where you could be paying £20 every year to re-buy the same cars over and over again. The Driveclub season pass gets it right with almost 40 cars for £5, PCARS would've been good value too if the content wasn't rubbish. However games like Assetto Corsa and especially Forza are abusing their customers with the pricing (Just look at the NASCAR pack, $20 for 3 cars and 1 circuit).

DLC arguably makes the most sense in the racing genre: there's no end-point in terms of story. The biggest issue is the constant tweaking of physics engines — GT5 was guilty of this — essentially making it impossible to compare times in the same car across updates.

DC's Season Pass certainly wasn't originally £5, so that argument doesn't really hold up (especially considering the FM6 Porsche pack was also recently on sale for the same price). I do agree that Turn 10 needs to rethink the Porsche approach if they're going to continue milking it as DLC instead of included in the base game. FM6's pack brought very few new-to-franchise cars with it, and in terms of new models, pales in comparison to AC (though that game uses a bunch of nearly-identical cars to bump its count, too).

I disagree. Base game was 350+ cars for £50 = less than 15p per car, or 7 cars per £1. Even less if you factor in the map, apparently £15 or so worth.
(And now it's discounted to half that, vs. no discount on the DLC).

You're comparing apples to oranges though. The average going rate for cars as DLC is about $1 each. Yeah, the per-car-cost of the base game is substantially lower, but you're paying for the early access to these new models. It's optional, too: you can wait until the next game to drive them, but for those that don't want to, they're available for a small price in the current title.

A PS4 was originally much more expensive to buy when it launched in 2013, than it is now.

In my opinion, A game that revolves around cars and/or racing can never be "complete" in relation to car roster. You can't just wait to keep getting cars in, eventually a line will have to be drawn, and what is in it will have to be shipped. I'm not against DLC for racing games in most cases(bar FM5, that was a bunch of rehashes. Although, it having to meet a deadline with the Xbox One Launch, I guess that can't be helped.) I skipped out on all of the Season passes all the way up until FM6, and that so far has been the best bang for buck. FH3 so far is half and half, although I'm not entirely disappointed, yet.

I think the problems I might potentially have with DLC is the expansion pass mentioned for FH3. One is Blizzard Island, which sounds interesting, but the cars that come with it aren't really piquing my interest, and the eventual Porsche expansion coming after. The Porsche packs have been relatively similar ever since release, which at first wasn't entirely horrible as it was a jump from past gen to current, but now three games into this generation, It'll be nice if they'd offer something substantially different. If not, I'll skip it all together.

I'm not one that has the "I have to have everything!" Mentality. The base game was fine for me, but I jumped into the Ultimate in hopes that it matches up to what was previously released on FM6. That's why I have a tendency to approach each DLC(racing game or otherwise) with as much information as I can, that way I can decide if its worth my money or not. If I enjoy the game enough, I don't have a problem purchasing DLC, as long as it's interesting enough on its own.

Yeah, FM6's Season Pass was — so far — more impressive than FH3's. Which is a shame, since FH2's was much better than FM5's (which was right up there with FH1's as the worst in the franchise).

FM6's Porsche expansion was interesting in terms of what it added to the offline career. I hope something like that is continued with FM7 or even FH3's inevitable Porsche expansion. T10/Playground can't rely on the same amount of largely carry-over content: it's becoming increasingly obvious there's no intention of ever reintegrating Porsche into the game from day one.

Not every single piece of extra content is needed to enjoy the base game(s) in most cases, and that goes for any genre. Just approach every instance objectively and make comparisons with it and other games, or even with the base game before purchase.

This so much. It's always bothered me when people refer to DLC-heavy games as "incomplete". Unless any of the DLC is required to accomplish something in the game — and in the case of FM6 and FH3, it most certainly hasn't been — then the game is certainly complete. DLC is optional.

Assetto Corsa is a different matter. It's missing features from the PC version, but Kunos is slowly updating the game to include them (at least, some of them). It's doing so for free.

DLC's value is, much more so than vanilla games, based on the individual's tastes. While ardent Assetto Corsa fans trip over themselves to praise every DLC pack for the game, I'm left a little cold by a lot of similar cars (718 Cayman, and two 718 Boxsters). I don't really care for a lot of the supercars added in FH3, but I loved just about every single pack in FM6, since they tended to cover a wider range of cars (and didn't favour the latest decade).

 

[Brend]

I'm glad this is inciting some discussion. I found it a difficult topic to talk about as everyone has their own 'flagship' series that they love and will always be a bit soft toward.

DLC is here to stay, that we know!

 

[88c-v Racer]

The base game was fine for me

I would agree with that if there was no DLC, I don't find the base game to be lacking in the case of FH3. The problem is I want the extra cars and expansions because I feel like they'd be cool to have. I just feel like T10 is price gouging everyone for the DLC which is crappy. It'd be like going to a restaurant and buying a soda for $2.00, then because you want the cup to be full, $0.50. Ice, $0.50. A lid and a straw, $1.00. It makes me more irritated that they'll get away with it because there's enough people that don't see paying $120 or more for a single game with all the DLC's as an issue. I don't have that kind of money to be throwing at games, but it's becoming normal pricing for the industry. I feel like I'm getting shut out of my own hobby by greedy devs.

 

[ImaRobot]

I would agree with that if there was no DLC, I don't find the base game to be lacking in the case of FH3. The problem is I want the extra cars and expansions because I feel like they'd be cool to have. I just feel like T10 is price gouging everyone for the DLC which is crappy.

So DLC makes you feel like a game is incomplete, no matter how complete a game is? DLC doesn't automatically make a game incomplete, that will all depend on how the base game is irregardless of DLC. As for wanting them, because it sounds like they'd be cool to have, then wouldn't that mean that your justifying it in the first place? It sounds like you're agreeing and disagreeing with yourself at the same time.

It'd be like going to a restaurant and buying a soda for $2.00, then because you want the cup to be full, $0.50. Ice, $0.50. A lid and a straw, $1.00.

This comparison doesn't fit. At all. It's more like going and getting a cheeseburger for $2, and then you notice that there's bacon for $1 extra. Do you like bacon that much that you think it's worth it? The regular cheeseburger is already a fine choice, but you opt for the extra, because who doesn't love bacon?

It makes me more irritated that they'll get away with it because there's enough people that don't see paying $120 or more for a single game with all the DLC's as an issue

It irritates you that people find value in what they spend their money on? Some people spend thousands just to play a game, with all the peripherals available. If it's worth it, then let them spend their money. It's not like the Car packs in most games have been absolutely horrible. If a game had just one optional DLC that was exceptional, I would buy it. Just in the same stance if it was 10 exceptional, optional car packs, I would purchase them also.

I don't have that kind of money to be throwing at games, but it's becoming normal pricing for the industry. I feel like I'm getting shut out of my own hobby by greedy devs.

That is less of a problem of the game and more of one with your financial situation. I have extra spending money, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going into each pack willy nilly. I may have done that with FM6 and Fh3 so far, but that's because FM6's was so good that I was in good faith. Some bit into FH3's, It's not as amazing as FM6's was, but I'm not outright disappointed yet. These experiences are what will lead you to make the decisions you make in the future.

You're frustrated because people like these packs and have the money to spend to get them, yet you have to be more conservative because you're lacking the funds to proceed like others have proceeded. This hobby of ours has never been cheap.

 

[Brend]

I believe the feeling of completeness becomes compounded when games release a 'complete edition' later down the line too.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

Here is how I look at it; If I enjoy any game or have enjoyed a game in the franchise, I buy the season pass and most of the DLC sight unseen. I look at it as supporting the company who happens to contribute to the hobby I enjoy.

It's also important to understand that game developers and publishers are in the business to make money. If these companies and the investors continue to turn profits, I won't have to be at the mercies of a kick-starter title or depend on a severely underfunded product to scratch that itch.

As it sits, there are only two big budget console sim games left.

 

[ImaRobot]

I believe the feeling of completeness becomes compounded when games release a 'complete edition' later down the line too.

I've always hated that Although, it comes in handy if it's a game that I did not purchase at release If it's the other way around, it gets a bit frustrating.

 

[Brend]

I've always hated that Although, it comes in handy if it's a game that I did not purchase at release If it's the other way around, it gets a bit frustrating.

Oh definitely, a good aspect of DLC is that it does scale down in price digitally. Unlike the actual games themselves usually minus sales.

 

[syntex123]

I'd just rather paying for a subscription based game a la iRacing, but more in the like of different licenses. Like for 15 bucks you get license to race GT3 class cars, for 45 you get all of the classes. You get my idea. That way you can pay as little or as you much you want for the game and get only the content that suits you. Oh and more cars added to said class is a free update. The subscribed class lasts 6 months or so before renewing. I'd like a game like that.

 

[ImaRobot]

I'd just rather paying for a subscription based game a la iRacing, but more in the like of different licenses. Like for 15 bucks you get license to race GT3 class cars, for 45 you get all of the classes. You get my idea. That way you can pay as little or as you much you want for the game and get only the content that suits you. Oh and more cars added to said class is a free update. The subscribed class lasts 6 months or so before renewing. I'd like a game like that.

That sounds like a much worse way of going about things than even the worst DLC options lol. I'm not much for paid subscriptions like that.

 

[jamman39]

I think the alternative to DLC is that we start being asked to pay a more realistic price for the base game. I would imagine that a game like FH3 would be something like $90 if they couldn't charge for dlc. Think about all the different licenses, manufacturers, model names, tire brands, tuner brands, music licenses. Racing games are probably some of the most expensive games to license and create.

I also really enjoy dlc releases. They give me a good reason to turn on a game I may have moved on from. I felt comfortable putting Assetto Corsa aside last month knowing I'll play it again with each new DLC release

 

[syntex123]

That sounds like a much worse way of going about things than even the worst DLC options lol. I'm not much for paid subscriptions like that.

Totally depends on the game. Sure, it sucks for most games. But then again it works for others. I'll correct my vision by saying the following, and I want you to picture it:
You play a game much like Gran Turismo, you start with a cheap and slow car, progressing like you would in GT, buying parts and new cars. That would be your base game. No racing cars, except for racing mods like in GT1-2. Then on top of that you can choose to expand your game with DLCs or whatever you choose to call them. One DLC for GT3, one for NASCAR, one for DTM etc. Reasonable priced, but big enough to be concidered expansions. At least 20 cars per pack. And there's your license. You can see the championships and cars in game but in order to race them you need a license. And you pay for that license much like you would pay for a DLC.
Better?

 

[ImaRobot]

Totally depends on the game. Sure, it sucks for most games. But then again it works for others. I'll correct my vision by saying the following, and I want you to picture it:
You play a game much like Gran Turismo, you start with a cheap and slow car, progressing like you would in GT, buying parts and new cars. That would be your base game. No racing cars, except for racing mods like in GT1-2. Then on top of that you can choose to expand your game with DLCs or whatever you choose to call them. One DLC for GT3, one for NASCAR, one for DTM etc. Reasonable priced, but big enough to be concidered expansions. At least 20 cars per pack. And there's your license. You can see the championships and cars in game but in order to race them you need a license. And you pay for that license much like you would pay for a DLC.
Better?

I think I like the well rounded approach that games like GT and Forza seem to aim for(road cars, to different forms of motorsports all included in the package to some degree), rather than them putting every different category as different form of DLC. It all just seems a bit overboard, especially having to pay on top of that to get the license as well. That doesn't really sound any better lol.

 

[syntex123]

@ImaRobot Then we know, to answer the OP and sum you up, you think a game like that with post release support is a hindrance.
I for one think it could be an interesting approach, that way people don't have to complain about having content they dislike (like VGTs in GT racing against LMPs etc)

 

[ImaRobot]

@ImaRobot Then we know, to answer the OP and sum you up, you think a game like that with post release support is a hindrance.
I for one think it could be an interesting approach, that way people don't have to complain about having content they dislike (like VGTs in GT racing against LMPs etc)

No, not at all. Paid subscription services like that are iffy. Things like PS+ and Xbox Live for those who game on consoles are already bad enough. So to add licenses that you'd have to renew in the same way, as well as buying cars for said game only to be cut out of them once your license expires, to be just too much. On top of that, minimizing a game to make every aspect of it an additional DLC seems excessive, even from being a person that doesn't mind Forza's DLC plan.

I enjoy post release support, just not a game with a subscription like that.

 

[syntex123]

Sure on console it would suck. But on PC it could work. On consoles I agree with you.

Your last two words agreed with my post, though, I did also say those two words.

 

[breyzipp]

The price to get full game post-launch content lately is really ridiculous, it's really escalating out of hand. I think eventually I will get alienated from it and just wait for GOTY releases or sales.

The best racing game on XBox (bang for buck) that anyone could buy over the last 2 years is probably the Project CARS GOTY edition. You have the full game and all the bonus content for it for 30 EUR or something when it launched. Now during the Black Friday sales it was probably even lower.

The best bang for the buck I got was the revised Tomb Raider on XBox One for a whoppin 8 EUR. Yep, that is the same price as ONE Forza car pack.

I bought a lot of games lately, just anything I want since money is not an issue (I'm over 40 years old) but it just start to get silly to spend this much money on games. For 2017 I will throw it around completely, no more buying games on release date or get lured into pre-order bonusses. I will focus on finishing all the games I have now first and once that's done then I'll just wait for holiday sales periods or the 2017 black friday deals.

I might make one exception to that rule and that is the franchise I spent the most gaming time on and that is either Forza or HearthStone.