Borderlands 800 MS Points-DLC already ready to go...

[Plague_Injected]

From games.on.net: (http://games.on.net/article/7169/Borderlands_DLC_announced)

Called The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned, this "full-fledged expansion" will see players work alongside the titular physician to cure the inhabitants of Jakob's Cove... The expansion is due out later this year, for AU$12.95 (US$10) or 800 MS points

Personally I am getting really tired of developers/publishers whoring out DLC before their game is even out yet. It screams of "leave that bit out and we'll slug the saps for it after launch", which really stinks considering it has happened at least twice this year already (both by Capcom).

To hell with this.

[tigger1612]

This is why PC gaming is still the best platform available to me. We don't get nickel and dimed for these kinds of things, atleast not nearly as often. Kids on the xbox and ps3 eat this stuff up cause they don't know any better. When games starting charging money to download maps I could not believe my eyes. I never thought I would see the day.

[Bigbacon]

how do you know that PC players won't need to buy it?

[Nettwerk]

how do you know that PC players won't need to buy it?


We got copy 'n paste!

[wfalcon]

How does "due out later this year" equate with "already ready to go"?

[kelbear]

Yeah, this is kind of a dick move on their part.

[theNoid]

Actually in fairness to Gearbox, when asked back in August about future DLC.. CEO Randy Pitchford stated were working hard on getting additional content out and planned to have some ready not long after launch.

I want every one of you to ask yourself a question, if you were Gearbox would you do it differently? Its only a matter of days/months/years before the PC platform starts getting fleeced. Without a doubt.

[chairhome]

This is why PC gaming is still the best platform available to me. We don't get nickel and dimed for these kinds of things, atleast not nearly as often. Kids on the xbox and ps3 eat this stuff up cause they don't know any better. When games starting charging money to download maps I could not believe my eyes. I never thought I would see the day.

The DLC is $10 for PC.

[j-sta]

bitching because they said they will have added content after you've played through the game?

oh noes! I will have more to play after I beat it if I fork out $10! those bastards! :rolleyes:

maybe think that by doing this, it will entice more users because they (the users) know there actually will be additional content, since it's already been stated? instead of just hoping?

or would you rather wait a year, after you've moved on to other games?

they will sell more this way. by waiting too long, they've lost out on sales from the people that beat the game and have moved on.

[dwk]

This is from another post on a different forum and pretty much sums it up and why people should stop complaining about DLC time frame:

For all the retards that dont know how game development works... Preplan game, design game, iterate game, test game, iterate, test, iterate, test, last final touches for development, test..test...test, release to consoles for certification if applicable, wait for approval, release to manufacturing (gold master), wait for release as publisher has taken over.

From the time Development is done with final CONTENT, the rest is testing, and minor bug fixes. Do you expect developers to sit around with all that art and level designers and programmers and just do nothing!?? NO, they start working on another game.. or DLC, most work on DLC.. It can be 2 months from the time development is actually finished with the game to the time it gets shipped.

Developers who release DLC within the first 2 months of a release are smart, the hype is there, the want to play the game is there, they can retain game retention and make some extra cash.

If you think they should of included all these in the game in the first place.. uhh hello, they have to stop working on the game some time and ship it.. by alchemdith

[Porter_]

i like free stuff but i have no problem with paying for DLC, and no problem with developers having it ready to go near release. no one's forcing you to purchase.

[elrechazao]

From games.on.net: (http://games.on.net/article/7169/Borderlands_DLC_announced)



Personally I am getting really tired of developers/publishers whoring out DLC before their game is even out yet. It screams of "leave that bit out and we'll slug the saps for it after launch", which really stinks considering it has happened at least twice this year already (both by Capcom).

To hell with this.

It's not ready to go, but other than being totally wrong, you're right :rolleyes:

[j-sta]

Developers who release DLC within the first 2 months of a release are smart, the hype is there, the want to play the game is there, they can retain game retention and make some extra cash.

that pretty much sums up what I said, and definitely agree with :p

[lobski2]

As mentioned, $10 for PC DLC.

It doesn't matter though, if the game is great, I'll have no problems in buying it.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Actually in fairness to Gearbox, when asked back in August about future DLC.. CEO Randy Pitchford stated were working hard on getting additional content out and planned to have some ready not long after launch.

I want every one of you to ask yourself a question, if you were Gearbox would you do it differently? Its only a matter of days/months/years before the PC platform starts getting fleeced. Without a doubt.

This is exactly why we despise it. When you plan to keep content ready to whore out after launch, you intentionally deprive the launch game. I for one, will not participate. PC gamers are NOT the same market as consolers and developers need to learn that. I've already preordered the game, due to the 4 pack discount, but this is just sickening. After all their yammering about being dedicated to the PC platform.

[Krenum]

We got copy 'n paste!

Yep. :cool:.... and Lanparties.

[topslop1]

We got copy 'n paste!

And god bless it.

[Zero82z]

This is exactly why we despise it. When you plan to keep content ready to whore out after launch, you intentionally deprive the launch game. I for one, will not participate. PC gamers are NOT the same market as consolers and developers need to learn that. I've already preordered the game, due to the 4 pack discount, but this is just sickening. After all their yammering about being dedicated to the PC platform.
See dwk's post. This isn't stuff that could have been in the game but was removed to turn it into DLC. This is brand new content that was made by the devs in charge of asset creation once the main game was complete and they had no more work to do to it.

DLC is essentially the same as a small expansion, which is hardly a new thing for PC games. There's nothing wrong with charging for additional content that was never part of the original game.

[socK]

The DLC is $10 for PC.

yeah this is going to work great, laff.
$10 dlc for a game i paid $34 for.

unless this is some fantastic content, they wish they were getting almost 30% of my purchase for it.


DLC is essentially the same as a small expansion, which is hardly a new thing for PC games. There's nothing wrong with charging for additional content that was never part of the original game.

yeah, there is. it's called supporting your title.

look at Epic and Valve, they shit content for their PC titles and don't charge squat.

[Zero82z]

yeah, there is. it's called supporting your title.

look at Epic and Valve, they shit content for their PC titles and don't charge squat.
Supporting a game through patches and bug fixes is entirely different from adding content to it. And aside from Epic and Valve, what dev studios release large content additions for free? It's not a common practice at all, for PCs or for consoles.

[wfalcon]

yeah, there is. it's called supporting your title.

look at Epic and Valve, they shit content for their PC titles and don't charge squat.

Yes...like Left 4 Dead. Doh - NM. Hell, maybe Gearbox should slap a sticker with the number 2 on there and charge full price.

[socK]

Yes...like Left 4 Dead. Doh - NM. Hell, maybe Gearbox should slap a sticker with the number 2 on there and charge full price.

lesse, a million patches, custom content capabilities, a new campaign, a new gamemode, later fixed up the other 2 campaigns for vs...
l4d2 is an entirely new full length game, which i just payed $34 for.

Supporting a game through patches and bug fixes is entirely different from adding content to it. And aside from Epic and Valve, what dev studios release large content additions for free? It's not a common practice at all, for PCs or for consoles.

Blizzard?

[wfalcon]

lesse, a million patches, custom content capabilities, a new campaign, a new gamemode, later fixed up the other 2 campaigns for vs...
l4d2 is an entirely new full length game, which i just payed $34 for.

You and I will have to agree to disagree with that one, as this thread isn't about L4D. Million patches? Hardly. One new game mode and one half-ass campaign is it. The other crap should've been included out of the box.

Anyway, the point is that Gearbox is planning DLC that will be available later in the game's life (not at launch which the OP insinuates). There are enough other devs/games that do this, so why is Gearbox taking more heat for it? If you want to get pissed at a dev for doing what they are misleadingly accused of doing, point the finger at Maxis and The Sims 3.

[Zero82z]

Blizzard?
Blizzard doesn't release free content. In fact, they're pretty notorious for releasing expansions for their games (the only game from their well-known series that didn't have an expansion released for it at some point was the original Warcraft). What's the difference between paying $30 for a decent content expansion and paying $10 three times for DLC which will add up to the same amount of content in the end?

[darkhorse]

I hate the tactic too but this one I won't mind buying since in Canada Borderlands is retailing for $39 for the first couple days, $30 cheaper than any other new game. Borderlands+DLC will still be cheaper for me than any other new game.

[bL33d]

Well im 32 and use to be a pc gamer and know the plus side of pc gaming but also the downside such as less of a selection and poor ports so as pc gamers allways feel the need to try and bash console gamers i figured id point that out. they both have downsides. my 360 is equip with a xim360 so most of the downside is gone for me. ;)

[Plague_Injected]

"Later in the year".

Are you people aware it is October? That means there will be a maximum two-month gap between launch and the DLC's release. It's not going to be half a year away or some such great length of time as some of you are trying to suggest. I'd expect it to turn up within a month to coincide with CODMW2 and the other holiday-release games.

[Plague_Injected]

Blizzard doesn't release free content. In fact, they're pretty notorious for releasing expansions for their games (the only game from their well-known series that didn't have an expansion released for it at some point was the original Warcraft). What's the difference between paying $30 for a decent content expansion and paying $10 three times for DLC which will add up to the same amount of content in the end?

Several new maps came with specific patches of Starcraft and Warcraft III. New items, unique monsters, rune formulae and rune words have released with Diablo II patches from 1.10, with another content patch apparently on the way, all for free. That's as well as countless balancing changes that often require players to come up with brand new strategies (or in Diablo II, character builds) that could be seen as annoying but can also be seen as keeping the game dynamic. Blizzard patches are certainly not the typical 'fixed one gamebreaking bug and some random tiny ones' for three patches and then nothing afterwards.

[Daggah]

See dwk's post. This isn't stuff that could have been in the game but was removed to turn it into DLC. This is brand new content that was made by the devs in charge of asset creation once the main game was complete and they had no more work to do to it.

Care to support this assertion?

[stereoD]

Care to support this assertion?

Randy Pitchford: (http://www.thesavepoints.com/2009/09/borderlands-dlc-plans/)

But, during cert, if you have a lot of level designers who have nothing to do–which is pretty common, you pull level design and art off first–they’re gonna be making cool shit and want to make cool shit. That cool shit, that tends to be what DLC ends up being. It’s the stuff we couldn’t add to the game because we’re making it during cert, which is impossible to get into the [retail] game.

[Daggah]

That quote, it doesn't say what you think it says.

He basically just confirmed that the DLC is content that was intentionally held back at release...which is pretty much what the OP accused them of doing.

[xsoulbrothax]

That quote, it doesn't say what you think it says.

He basically just confirmed that the DLC is content that was intentionally held back at release...which is pretty much what the OP accused them of doing.

They are done with the game as it will be sent to retail. It goes to cert, final bugfixing, whatever - the content on that disc is locked in place. Nothing more is being added to the game at that point.

Besides that, the game itself generally has X budget attached to it in terms of money and people assigned to the project. That isn't changing. The DLC is taking additional budget and people specifically for DLC to make the DLC. They're not depriving the game of anything, as the alternative is that the stuff simply wouldn't exist. Bethesda's a good example, as they had dedicated content teams working on the Fallout 3 DLC that were separate from the main game.

Some people do blatant whoring, like the on-disc content that is locked, but they're the exception to the rule and the DLC is generally a waste of time on those anyway.

[elrechazao]

That quote, it doesn't say what you think it says.

He basically just confirmed that the DLC is content that was intentionally held back at release...which is pretty much what the OP accused them of doing.

I don't think you understand game development. Under your theory, they will just keep adding content whenever they want. In reality, they do that, and they never release the game. The game has to be certified by all platforms that it will be released on, go through ESRB review for ratings purposes, and so on.

Once they get to the final game, they have to draw a line and SUBMIT THEIR PRODUCT. They can't keep adding shit as they come up with it after that line has been drawn.

If you want to debate whether new content should be free or not, that's a real discussion. Whining about content that they created after they submitted the game for review, cert, and ratings so they can actually release it is just foolish.

[Somnambulator]

i think the DLC for BL is a bit different. most of the games with laucnh-day or near launch-day DLC held it back from the retail release. Randy pitchfork announced a while ago that they had some DLC planned for shortly after launch but ensured it was content never planned for the retail release. he claims it is truely a small expansion that fits into the game, but you could see how it was added later since it's a whole new area.

if true, im still not 100% behind this, but at least it's not EA developers withholding launch-day content and charging for it.

the FO3 DLC was certainly worth paying for, though 20 bucks was a little harsh. i feel they were worth 10 or 15 a piece since 2 DLCs @ $40 total did not equal the length of the full game (which i bought for $30 but originally found as cheap as $40 on launch day)

CoD5 had all the console DLCs for free on the PC... there's a lot of PC devs that still support their games for free with new content.it's what we expect. the FO3 DLCs are more like HL2's Episodes: significant content that definitely did not fully exist when the game was released.

[Staples]

This is why PC gaming is still the best platform available to me. We don't get nickel and dimed for these kinds of things, atleast not nearly as often. Kids on the xbox and ps3 eat this stuff up cause they don't know any better. When games starting charging money to download maps I could not believe my eyes. I never thought I would see the day.

It will come. The only reason that PC players get it free is because there are troubles distributing and charging for the content. Once digital downloads become the majority of game purchases, you can expect to be charged for these add ons.

[Daggah]

I don't think you understand game development. Under your theory, they will just keep adding content whenever they want. In reality, they do that, and they never release the game. The game has to be certified by all platforms that it will be released on, go through ESRB review for ratings purposes, and so on.

Once they get to the final game, they have to draw a line and SUBMIT THEIR PRODUCT. They can't keep adding shit as they come up with it after that line has been drawn.

If you want to debate whether new content should be free or not, that's a real discussion. Whining about content that they created after they submitted the game for review, cert, and ratings so they can actually release it is just foolish.

I'm sorry, what do you do for a living? If you don't say "game developer" I'm going to laugh at you.

I understand it just fine. What you don't realize is that these companies have figured out that they don't need to complete as much content for their release deadline, because the stuff they don't create by then they can just package and sell later on. Why do you think it is that paid DLC is a recent phenomenon? If you were right, then this practice should've become commonplace a long time ago. Yes, digital distribution is new, but it's not THAT new. And yet, it's just now starting to become commonplace.

I got no beef with paid DLC. But I'd have to be one hell of a blind fanboy to believe that paid DLC that is released practically alongside a game wasn't content cut from the main game specifically to sell as DLC...

[elrechazao]

I'm sorry, what do you do for a living? If you don't say "game developer" I'm going to laugh at you.

I understand it just fine. What you don't realize is that these companies have figured out that they don't need to complete as much content for their release deadline, because the stuff they don't create by then they can just package and sell later on. Why do you think it is that paid DLC is a recent phenomenon? If you were right, then this practice should've become commonplace a long time ago. Yes, digital distribution is new, but it's not THAT new. And yet, it's just now starting to become commonplace.

I got no beef with paid DLC. But I'd have to be one hell of a blind fanboy to believe that paid DLC that is released practically alongside a game wasn't content cut from the main game specifically to sell as DLC...

So you have no response to any of the ways I completely refuted your ridiculous argument, beyond silly conjecture.

Well, I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

[Daggah]

So you have no response to any of the ways I completely refuted your ridiculous argument, beyond silly conjecture.

Well, I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

It's not like your argument is based on solid fact there buddy. You're speculating just as much as I am. As commercialized as gaming has become, I'm just being a realist here.

[Daggah]

Ultimately, whether the paid DLC is content they said "remove this from the game, we'll repackage it as DLC" or "don't make this content yet, we'll make it as DLC" the end result is the same. If Borderlands was made and released three years ago, I am willing to bet that this DLC content would have been part of the main game.

[elrechazao]

Ultimately, whether the paid DLC is content they said "remove this from the game, we'll repackage it as DLC" or "don't make this content yet, we'll make it as DLC" the end result is the same. If Borderlands was made and released three years ago, I am willing to bet that this DLC content would have been part of the main game.

You're talking complete nonsense now. What the hell does that last sentence even mean?

You still haven't come up with any explanation for how they would continually make content during this magical neverending dev cycle that requires all of these certifications and actual publishing, yet still release the game. But you don't have any, so you'll continue to spew nonsense like the two inane points you made above.

[Daggah]

You're talking complete nonsense now. What the hell does that last sentence even mean?

You still haven't come up with any explanation for how they would continually make content during this magical neverending dev cycle that requires all of these certifications and actual publishing, yet still release the game. But you don't have any, so you'll continue to spew nonsense like the two inane points you made above.

Your argument is a straw man. Where did I say anything to suggest that the content development cycle should be infinite?

I think my last sentence in my previous post makes perfect sense. If Borderlands was made and released three years ago, when the concept of paid DLC didn't really exist, this content would probably be part of the main game.

The DLC content takes time to be developed and tested too, you know. Unless it's rushed, I find it hard to believe that this is just extra stuff the art and level teams pumped out while everything else was finished and being finalized for release.

You're just naive.

[Zero82z]

If Borderlands was made and released three years ago, when the concept of paid DLC didn't really exist, this content would probably be part of the main game.
No. The content would have either been released as an expansion, or just not made altogether. This DLC was never planned to be part of the original game. The entire process of creation, from planning to concept to completion, was started after the main game had already been finished.

[Daggah]

No. The content would have either been released as an expansion, or just not made altogether. This DLC was never planned to be part of the original game. The entire process of creation, from planning to concept to completion, was started after the main game had already been finished.

Care to support that assertion?

[IcedEmotion]

This pack doesn't bother me that much, but then again I'm a fan of zombies so maybe I'm biased. It's hard to say if this content should have been on the disc, but at least it offers more than the RE5 VS mode DLC which in my mind was the worst offender this generation.

I don't need to buy this at launch, and if I play through the game and want to kill some zombies after I'm kind of glad I have that option for $10.

[Zero82z]

Care to support that assertion?
But, during cert, if you have a lot of level designers who have nothing to do–which is pretty common, you pull level design and art off first–they’re gonna be making cool shit and want to make cool shit. That cool shit, that tends to be what DLC ends up being. It’s the stuff we couldn’t add to the game because we’re making it during cert, which is impossible to get into the [retail] game.
That quote says it all.

[elrechazao]

That quote says it all.

I wouldn't bother with him, he's confusing his hate for paid dlc with everything else.

[Daggah]

That quote says it all.

Really, PR bullshit is your only defense?

LOL.

[Zero82z]

Really, PR bullshit is your only defense?

LOL.
That's not PR bullshit, it's one of the developers stating what is going on. That is the most concrete information that we can get on the subject. And of course, if you had any idea how a development cycle actually works, you'd understand that he was telling the truth. But if you have it in your head that he's lying and are dead set against believing anything else, then no evidence I could ever come up with would convince you otherwise, making this argument rather pointless.

[Daggah]

That's not PR bullshit, it's one of the developers stating what is going on. That is the most concrete information that we can get on the subject. And of course, if you had any idea how a development cycle actually works, you'd understand that he was telling the truth. But if you have it in your head that he's lying and are dead set against believing anything else, then no evidence I could ever come up with would convince you otherwise, making this argument rather pointless.

And I've already explained how one could interpret that differently from the way you interpreted it. :rolleyes:

What you're failing to realize is that the developer has a vested interest in presenting the DLC in as positive of a light as he can. So no, it's not the most concrete information on the subject. It's spin. It's marketing. It's hype.

And in this case, it smells like BS.

[elrechazao]

And I've already explained how one could interpret that differently from the way you interpreted it. :rolleyes:

What you're failing to realize is that the developer has a vested interest in presenting the DLC in as positive of a light as he can. So no, it's not the most concrete information on the subject. It's spin. It's marketing. It's hype.

And in this case, it smells like BS.

It smells like bs...because you think so, in spite of all logic and common sense and reality that's staring you in the face. But ok. Just stop talking, you're really embarrassing yourself now.

[Daggah]

It smells like bs...because you think so, in spite of all logic and common sense and reality that's staring you in the face. But ok. Just stop talking, you're really embarrassing yourself now.

The reality is, all of us are speculating about this. The only difference is, at least I have the integrity to realize and say that.

Keep turning a blind eye to the reality of commercialized gaming, fanboy.

[Zero82z]

And I've already explained how one could interpret that differently from the way you interpreted it. :rolleyes:
No, you're quite wrong. The quote specifically says that the DLC is content that was created after the game was already finished and sent to certification. It wasn't held back from the full game, since it didn't exist altogether prior to that point.

[elrechazao]

The reality is, all of us are speculating about this. The only difference is, at least I have the integrity to realize and say that.

Keep turning a blind eye to the reality of commercialized gaming, fanboy.

Hey look, you're confusing your hatred of paid dlc for the issue of dlc generally and how development works, just like I pointed out pages ago. Keep going though, you might end up saying something relevant if you keep posting. I'm not holding my breath though .

[Daggah]

No, you're quite wrong. The quote specifically says that the DLC is content that was created after the game was already finished and sent to certification. It wasn't held back from the full game, since it didn't exist altogether prior to that point.

Maybe the work itself didn't. I'm willing to bet the concept did, and they decided not to start work on it until the cert phase. The end result is the same. The content was made specifically as DLC to rake in more money.

DLC released at the same time as the main game is a money grab. Pure and simple.

[Daggah]

Hey look, you're confusing your hatred of paid dlc for the issue of dlc generally and how development works, just like I pointed out pages ago. Keep going though, you might end up saying something relevant if you keep posting. I'm not holding my breath though .

I'm not opposed to paid DLC. But keep beating on that straw man!

[elrechazao]

I'm not opposed to paid DLC. But keep beating on that straw man!

k :rolleyes:

Keep on the "you can somehow make content forever, and still have a release and a gold master to send to cert and ratings" paradox. I'll allow you the inevitably inane last word, because talking with you is slightly less amusing than discussing this with my socks.

[Daggah]

k :rolleyes:

Keep on the "you can somehow make content forever, and still have a release and a gold master to send to cert and ratings" paradox. I'll allow you the inevitably inane last word, because talking with you is slightly less amusing than discussing this with my socks.

You really are quite fond of misrepresenting opposing viewpoints, aren't you?

[Dreaz]

Daggah, I don't like DLC as a whole, but stop bringing up strawman and trying to use logic to prove the unprovable by asserting something that is inherently untestable.

You can't say,

If Borderlands was made and released three years ago, when the concept of paid DLC didn't really exist, this content would probably be part of the main game.

and think that's some sort of proof of your truthiness. That's an impossible claim to make because it can't be tested.

True, we also can't know the motivation for the DLC pack. However, I am familiar with stuff that is created via a collaborative process, so I tend to think DLC content is basically stuff that wouldn't have made it into the final game (of course there's money-milking exceptions).

[wfalcon]

Why do you think it is that paid DLC is a recent phenomenon? If you were right, then this practice should've become commonplace a long time ago.

It did become commonplace a long time ago. It was called an expansion pack back then. However, a certain amount of content would have to be developed before they could package it and send it off to the publisher to justify the $30 or so pricetag. These days, they can do it piecemeal and sell it at a fraction of the price.

[Zero82z]

It did become commonplace a long time ago. It was called an expansion pack back then. However, a certain amount of content would have to be developed before they could package it and send it off to the publisher to justify the $30 or so pricetag. These days, they can do it piecemeal and sell it at a fraction of the price.
Exactly.

[dravisar]

Ok, first off:

I spent 3 years working at Microsoft, creating the installers for PC games from 2000 to 2003. I was on a 15-20 man team who did nothing but create in game help, and the installers. My role put me directly in contact with multiple development teams, build engineers, testers, and designers. To put it simply I was sitting between the developer, publisher, and manufacturer - and some titles we only published - so I worked with third party/external devs during the RTM/gold process on a few titles as well.

The whole statement that content can be created, tested, and released prior to a game going gold is complete and utter hogwash, created by people who either have a vested interest in making money off the "content" or who prefer to talk out of their ass about things that they don't understand. If you truly understand the deadline process, you know that building up to a titles release, you are working insane hours under increasing pressure to perfect your product and release on time.

The second the title goes to manufacture, you definitely breath a sigh of relief, have a release party, and take a few days off....but the idea that things come to a grinding halt and you sit idly by waiting for release, even as level developers or content creators, is so ignorant and misinformed its appalling.

A product never releases exactly as you wanted it. There are almost always bugs that still need fixing, and issues that need resolving. The mark of a great developer can be releasing a title at launch thats flawless...when you see it happen, let me know. The second best thing is to have a patch ready ASAP for anything you overlooked or flat out couldn't get into the game in time.

As for content devs: They either move on to another project, another job title, or another product currently in development OR start on expansions and FREE content, as in MP maps etc.

They do not have time create all new DLC, test it, and release it before the product hits market. If they did, your project management team (hell your PM lead) needs to be fired for creating massively over-easy deadlines and mismanaging your resources - or for over working your dev teams when they should be taking some well earned time off with their families instead of continually slaving away like they did to make the deadline originally.

They are fleecing you with this insta-pay-for-DLC crap. Dragon Age and Badlands are both guilty of it, and I'm not a fan.

[stereoD]

Maybe the work itself didn't. I'm willing to bet the concept did, and they decided not to start work on it until the cert phase.


Yup, Gearbox is paying an entire art team to do absolutely nothing for months just so they can screw people out of another $10. And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling Daggah!

[arentol]

Care to support that assertion?

You ask others to support their assertions. They provide one quote from the developer which is a valid support for their assertions.

Meanwhile you make many assertions, and provide absolutely no support for them at all.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a stump.

[elrechazao]

You ask others to support their assertions. They provide one quote from the developer which is a valid support for their assertions.

Meanwhile you make many assertions, and provide absolutely no support for them at all.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a stump.

Oi, don't be so hard on stumps.

[Cyrilix]

Blizzard doesn't release free content. In fact, they're pretty notorious for releasing expansions for their games (the only game from their well-known series that didn't have an expansion released for it at some point was the original Warcraft). What's the difference between paying $30 for a decent content expansion and paying $10 three times for DLC which will add up to the same amount of content in the end?

The difference is that DLC will be used as a tool to provide functionality that should've been in the game in the first place, since it's a high granularity update (much like patches). They can rely on this tactic to rope people in to buying a flawed game that gets "DLCed" later. An expansion pack is a large project. You can't just tack it on 2 months down the line. What this means is that your BASE game must be reliable and have all of the required features (or at least not missing any that are game-breaking), and is therefore incentive for the developer to provide a polished base game.

[Zero82z]

The difference is that DLC will be used as a tool to provide functionality that should've been in the game in the first place, since it's a high granularity update (much like patches). They can rely on this tactic to rope people in to buying a flawed game that gets "DLCed" later. An expansion pack is a large project. You can't just tack it on 2 months down the line. What this means is that your BASE game must be reliable and have all of the required features (or at least not missing any that are game-breaking), and is therefore incentive for the developer to provide a polished base game.
Where do you get the notion that this DLC is being used to add functionality that wasn't part of the original game? It's entirely a content update with perhaps a handful of features added in, but nothing major. There's nothing unreliable or game-breaking about the game as it is now.

[Derangel]

Ok, first off:

I spent 3 years working at Microsoft, creating the installers for PC games from 2000 to 2003. I was on a 15-20 man team who did nothing but create in game help, and the installers. My role put me directly in contact with multiple development teams, build engineers, testers, and designers. To put it simply I was sitting between the developer, publisher, and manufacturer - and some titles we only published - so I worked with third party/external devs during the RTM/gold process on a few titles as well.

The whole statement that content can be created, tested, and released prior to a game going gold is complete and utter hogwash, created by people who either have a vested interest in making money off the "content" or who prefer to talk out of their ass about things that they don't understand. If you truly understand the deadline process, you know that building up to a titles release, you are working insane hours under increasing pressure to perfect your product and release on time.

The second the title goes to manufacture, you definitely breath a sigh of relief, have a release party, and take a few days off....but the idea that things come to a grinding halt and you sit idly by waiting for release, even as level developers or content creators, is so ignorant and misinformed its appalling.

A product never releases exactly as you wanted it. There are almost always bugs that still need fixing, and issues that need resolving. The mark of a great developer can be releasing a title at launch thats flawless...when you see it happen, let me know. The second best thing is to have a patch ready ASAP for anything you overlooked or flat out couldn't get into the game in time.

As for content devs: They either move on to another project, another job title, or another product currently in development OR start on expansions and FREE content, as in MP maps etc.

They do not have time create all new DLC, test it, and release it before the product hits market. If they did, your project management team (hell your PM lead) needs to be fired for creating massively over-easy deadlines and mismanaging your resources - or for over working your dev teams when they should be taking some well earned time off with their families instead of continually slaving away like they did to make the deadline originally.

They are fleecing you with this insta-pay-for-DLC crap. Dragon Age and Badlands are both guilty of it, and I'm not a fan.

The DAO DLC has been working for the last 6 months on stuff. The game was content locked back in March so the ports could be done. Since you claim to have worked with game developers I'm sure you understand what content locked means. DAO was supposed to release back in March. The DLC plans were put it place for that release date. The game was delayed so all versions could release closely together. The writers, level designers, and so on would have had nothing to do for a long time because they're not needed for porting and I'm sure they don't need all of them for QA. They're giving away one of the things the team worked on (Shale) to everyone that buys the game. They're giving away Warden's Keep to DDE buyers because they don't get the map or steel case. They can't give it away to anyone else because that would defeat the purpose of giving it away to DDE buyers. Not to mention WK was made on a new budget, not part of the original budget of the game itself. At least they're only charging $7 for it and I recall seeing a dev say it'll be around a few hours long on average (take that length statement as you will).

[Kanaric]

[quote]full-fledged expansion[/quote
full-fledge expansion + dlc i've not seen amount to more than 15 minutes of content yet.

[VermillionZ]

Ah DLC the new standard in rapping your pocket book.
I think they took a note from the RIAA and MPAA.

Just think of it you go to buy a game and only get the first level.
You want more content that will cost you.
Want to complete the game that will cost you more for the compele DLC ugh

I see it will get out of hand before people get really sick of it

[123Lanoix]

i don't see DLC as raping
i don't even feel compelled to buy most dlc !
the most dlc i buy is songs for rockband 2
i feel a little cheated with beatles rockband2 because i felt they should have included all the songs for the price since the beatles are no longer making music and every song is a hit
but other than that i don't feel dlc makes or breaks a game
i have own other games i have not bought the dlc for and the games were still fun
i just don't understand what the big deal is your not forced to buy dlc end of story
you don't think its worth it don't pay for it !
thats how you can send a message. but i liked the idea of dlc because its a quick way to add a little bit for content to a game you may really like
without spending another 60 dollars on a sequel or waiting for it to be developed or released.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Supporting a game through patches and bug fixes is entirely different from adding content to it. And aside from Epic and Valve, what dev studios release large content additions for free? It's not a common practice at all, for PCs or for consoles.

No, he's entirely right. You're confusing legitimate retail releases like expansion packs (ala Shivering Isles) with dinky DLC, which PC gamers have traditionally NEVER payed for. Never. Just take a look at pretty much any major PC release in the past decade and you will find most have had some free content released as a fix or addition.

I can't fathom why you people can't get this. Paying for DLC appeared on consoles, because it was a new mechanic. On PC in the past, it was just patching and content release. See: BF2, UTx, anything by Valve, any MMO, any major RTS, and the list goes on :rolleyes:

[spicey]

Personally I am getting really tired of developers/publishers whoring out DLC before their game is even out yet.



Yeah me too, very cynical marketing. I don't like it and can see right through it.

I remember the days of data disc addons. These at least were like whole new games not just a short outing or a mini quest and were actually worth buying.

Most DLC is just not worth the outlay and should have been included in the final released game to start with. But of course it's all about making money these days. Gaming is now a business not a hobby.

[Derangel]

Yeah me too, very cynical marketing. I don't like it and can see right through it.

I remember the days of data disc addons. These at least were like whole new games not just a short outing or a mini quest and were actually worth buying.

Most DLC is just not worth the outlay and should have been included in the final released game to start with. But of course it's all about making money these days. Gaming is now a business not a hobby.

Small crap like maps and weapons I don't disagree with you. That stuff should be free. Stuff akin to Fallout 3's DLC are actually things worth charging extra. You can argue that Bethesda charged to much for some of them (and I won't disagree with that either), but at least they felt like they're separate. I'm not going to make any judgment calls on this DLC until its out and I've had a chance to play it, if I decide to do so. I see no problem in announcing DLC before or around the release of a game. I understand that DLC is generally planned while a game is in development, so them saying "hey we're making DLC and here is an example" is fine, it lets people know they're going to continue to support the game in some way. This doesn't sound like it'll end up being something like the RE5 Versus mode crap or the SFIV unlock codes for on-disc costumes.

[Plague_Injected]

Horse Armour for the win.

[Zero82z]

No, he's entirely right. You're confusing legitimate retail releases like expansion packs (ala Shivering Isles) with dinky DLC, which PC gamers have traditionally NEVER payed for. Never. Just take a look at pretty much any major PC release in the past decade and you will find most have had some free content released as a fix or addition.

I can't fathom why you people can't get this. Paying for DLC appeared on consoles, because it was a new mechanic. On PC in the past, it was just patching and content release. See: BF2, UTx, anything by Valve, any MMO, any major RTS, and the list goes on :rolleyes:
The only difference between this kind of DLC and an expansion is that an expansion contains more content and is more expensive. However, this type of DLC is essentially the same thing as a small expansion, and it wouldn't have been released for free. If anything, in the past it would have either not been released altogether, or it would have been part of a larger expansion. It's silly to complain about having to pay more for additional content.

[j-sta]

entertaining read, here! :D

[Cyrilix]

Where do you get the notion that this DLC is being used to add functionality that wasn't part of the original game? It's entirely a content update with perhaps a handful of features added in, but nothing major. There's nothing unreliable or game-breaking about the game as it is now.

You mistake my meaning. I'm talking about DLCs in general. The idea is as follows:

Given the high granularity and fast development cycle of DLCs, they can be used to take advantage of gamers by not offering basic gameplay / functionality, and providing a "well, this game is almost complete, but not yet, however, you can pay just $10 to have it be closer to completion" attitude.

It's the idea that you can string people along with DLCs. The key thing to notice here is that the basic gameplay / functionality that is lacking is high-priority, while the extra content is low priority (desirable, but not necessary to the base game), and you package them together to coerce players into buying it, when all the high-priority items should've already existed, or been delivered by a free patch. Now, here's why you can't do that with expansions.

- Expansions packs have a longer development cycle. Without high-priority functionality, this is a deal-breaker for many people. You will lose sales if you delay too long on providing such functionality.
- Expansions are more expensive, and you can't expect that someone who only wanted to pay for the high-priority functionality, and not the extra content, to pony up for the full expansion, so using the expansion model reduces the player's risk that high-priority functionality won't be initially provided.

[Tylerdurdened]

Ok, first off:

I spent 3 years working at Microsoft, creating the installers for PC games from 2000 to 2003. I was on a 15-20 man team who did nothing but create in game help, and the installers. My role put me directly in contact with multiple development teams, build engineers, testers, and designers. To put it simply I was sitting between the developer, publisher, and manufacturer - and some titles we only published - so I worked with third party/external devs during the RTM/gold process on a few titles as well.

The whole statement that content can be created, tested, and released prior to a game going gold is complete and utter hogwash, created by people who either have a vested interest in making money off the "content" or who prefer to talk out of their ass about things that they don't understand. If you truly understand the deadline process, you know that building up to a titles release, you are working insane hours under increasing pressure to perfect your product and release on time.

The second the title goes to manufacture, you definitely breath a sigh of relief, have a release party, and take a few days off....but the idea that things come to a grinding halt and you sit idly by waiting for release, even as level developers or content creators, is so ignorant and misinformed its appalling.

A product never releases exactly as you wanted it. There are almost always bugs that still need fixing, and issues that need resolving. The mark of a great developer can be releasing a title at launch thats flawless...when you see it happen, let me know. The second best thing is to have a patch ready ASAP for anything you overlooked or flat out couldn't get into the game in time.

As for content devs: They either move on to another project, another job title, or another product currently in development OR start on expansions and FREE content, as in MP maps etc.

They do not have time create all new DLC, test it, and release it before the product hits market. If they did, your project management team (hell your PM lead) needs to be fired for creating massively over-easy deadlines and mismanaging your resources - or for over working your dev teams when they should be taking some well earned time off with their families instead of continually slaving away like they did to make the deadline originally.

They are fleecing you with this insta-pay-for-DLC crap. Dragon Age and Badlands are both guilty of it, and I'm not a fan.

Thanks for the interesting and technical read.

I totally agree, they are milking for money for bad content, and content that feels should have been in the game. The only DLC I bought were a map pack for Killzone 2, only to find out no one plays them anyway.

[Volucris]

Note to developers:


QUIT BEING A BUNCH OF DICKHOLES BY HALF-ASSING THE GAME AND THEN CHARGING US FOR WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME TO BEGIN WITH.

[Kanaric]

pre release dlc - lets intentionally release only part of the game then give them the rest for $10 so the game really costs $49.99 instead of the advertised $39.99

[wfalcon]

Note to developers:


QUIT BEING A BUNCH OF DICKHOLES BY HALF-ASSING THE GAME AND THEN CHARGING US FOR WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME TO BEGIN WITH.

Here's a unique, new concept - DON'T BUY IT! It's not something that's a critical element or function like an in-game trading system or anything, so you still have your original game for the original price.

[Katalysis]

Here's a unique, new concept - DON'T BUY IT! It's not something that's a critical element or function like an in-game trading system or anything, so you still have your original game for the original price.

His $60 to buy Borderlands though was essentially subsidizing their work on the DLC, since it is pretty clear they worked on both at the same time rather than devote those same resources into working on Borderlands itself, a game not without its flaws. IMO, when I pay $60 for a game, and they hold back content that they already had completed to charge me twice, I have been swindled.

Day zero DLC is a huge crock of shit, and 0MB DLC downloads are despicable. It's just double billing.

[Capfarland]

6 deleted posts hmm? Smells like an agenda. I simply voiced my opinion and mine was deleted, here it is again:

I think a company would be stupid not to have plans to release DLC for a game this big right from the get-go and this is simply additional content they didn't work on while the game was in production. I'm not a rabid consumer of DLC content but Borderlands is one game that definitely packs allot of content, I have no problem with this addition.

[Zero82z]

You mistake my meaning. I'm talking about DLCs in general. The idea is as follows:

Given the high granularity and fast development cycle of DLCs, they can be used to take advantage of gamers by not offering basic gameplay / functionality, and providing a "well, this game is almost complete, but not yet, however, you can pay just $10 to have it be closer to completion" attitude.

It's the idea that you can string people along with DLCs. The key thing to notice here is that the basic gameplay / functionality that is lacking is high-priority, while the extra content is low priority (desirable, but not necessary to the base game), and you package them together to coerce players into buying it, when all the high-priority items should've already existed, or been delivered by a free patch. Now, here's why you can't do that with expansions.

- Expansions packs have a longer development cycle. Without high-priority functionality, this is a deal-breaker for many people. You will lose sales if you delay too long on providing such functionality.
- Expansions are more expensive, and you can't expect that someone who only wanted to pay for the high-priority functionality, and not the extra content, to pony up for the full expansion, so using the expansion model reduces the player's risk that high-priority functionality won't be initially provided.
I see what you mean. Since this thread is about the Borderlands DLC, I assumed that you were referring specifically to it with your statements. I agree that in many cases DLC is used to milk consumers for cash, but I don't think that is what's going on here. This is a legitimate content addition based on everything we currently know.

[elrechazao]

Note to developers:


QUIT BEING A BUNCH OF DICKHOLES BY HALF-ASSING THE GAME AND THEN CHARGING US FOR WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME TO BEGIN WITH.

Note to posters who have no idea what they're talking about: borderlands is an incredible game that has 60+ hours to reach the max level on just a single character and is filled with awesomeness. But it's cool, call people dickholes and call games half assed when you haven't played them, that works great.

[elrechazao]

Day zero DLC is a huge crock of shit, and 0MB DLC downloads are despicable. It's just double billing.

Borderlands has neither zero day dlc nor 0 mb dlc downloads, so what are you babbling about?

[Capfarland]

I'm convinced some people type responses just to read their own posts over and over again, love how wrong these people are about Borderlands. I'll continue to enjoy a masterpiece of a game while you folks whine and produce 'facts' from your bumholes :D

[Anath]

Will this DLC be available for all platforms?