By Nelson Schneider - 11/11/12 at 02:49 PM CT
When it comes to milking the success of a popular game, devs and publishers can go one of two ways. The first, and most steeped-in-tradition option, is to crank out a sequel… then another… then another. While this has worked for a long time, it also builds up a set of expectations around a long-running franchise that can lead to catastrophic backlash if any given sequel doesn’t live up to its pedigree. Case in point: The ‘Final Fantasy’ and ‘Legend of Zelda’ franchises are well into the double-digits, and have both suffered high-profile flops this-gen. Sequels that stray too far from their original formula or feel like slap-dash rehashes thrown-together just for the sake of generating some quick revenue damage a franchise’s reputation at worst, or feel tired and spread-thin at best.
The alternative to constantly running on the sequel treadmill is the relatively new concept of downloadable content. DLC can create the same quick revenue stream (at a smaller price per unit with more units sold) as a sequel without running the risk of a game feeling like a rehash due to too much recycled content and not enough new content.
The decision to go with a full sequel or a bunch of DLC requires a careful balancing act. But this should be an OR decision, not an AND decision. The most bothersome and egregiously abusive game sales models this-gen have been games that produce a whole bunch of nickel-and-dime DLC, but then follow their DLC-bloated release with a full sequel.
In the best of situations, like with “LittleBigPlanet” and “LittleBigPlanet 2,” the sequel will have full compatibility with the DLC from the first game. This is a customer-friendly model that, at the same time, allows the developer to keep an income stream (from the DLC) while they work on the sequel. Of course, “LittleBigPlanet 2” recycles most of the original game engine and only adds a few new features, which lead me to wonder why it even had to be a sequel at all. Why not just keep throwing DLC at the original game? Why not save up new DLC for yet another sequel or a full-sized expansion pack?
On the other side of the argument, we have horrible situations like “SoulCalibur 4” and “SoulCalibur 5.” Both of these games have obscene amounts of relatively expensive DLC… yet none of this DLC is cross-compatible. At the same time, neither game’s DLC is content-rich enough to be scraped-together into a full expansion pack – a couple of characters and lots of overpriced virtual doll clothes do not make a valuable proposition. Even worse, both of these games are practically identical. While “SoulCalibur 5” supposedly has balance tweaks to the characters, why wouldn’t it be possible, and more sensible, to patch “SoulCalibur 4” with these balance tweaks? The release of “SoulCalibur 5” is just an excuse to re-sell the same game engine from “SoulCalibur 4” and – AT THE SAME TIME – re-sell lots and LOTS of DLC.
What both of these sequel situations have in common is that the preceding game and the following game don’t have appreciably different game engines. With the supposed point of DLC and continual patch-downloads being the ability to apply fixes and tweaks while providing customers with a small chunks of cheap bonus content, it seems that the developers of both franchises wanted to have their proverbial cake and eat it too.
What I really want is for developers to make up their minds whether to create DLC or sequels. To be honest, I’m not overly thrilled with either, as same-generation sequels are usually just reselling the game engine with some extra levels at full-price, while DLC dribbles along in a continuous release cycle that provides tiny chunks of new content months after I have already finished a game and kicked it off my backlog. Here I am, years after finishing “LittleBigPlanet 2” and “ModNation Racers,” only to have piles of DLC for both games that I haven’t touched. With dozens of new games in my backlog, I can’t motivate myself to revisit these old titles for a few teaspoons of new content (especially a game like “ModNation Racers,” that requires a lot of practice and getting ‘in-the-zone’ to beat the evil, cheap AI players).
Before the Internet made DLC viable, PC games got expansion packs that added a lot of new content to a game at once, without forcing customers to re-buy the re-used parts of the game engine. I think this is a situation developers should strive to return to. Here’s another example: “Super Mario Galaxy” and “Super Mario Galaxy 2.” Both of these games are great. Both of these games run on the same game engine (the working title of “Super Mario Galaxy 2” was “Super Mario Galaxy 1.5”). Both of these games cost $50 new. Why charge the same price for old game assets (the engine) that have already made tons of money? Why not charge $50 for “Super Mario Galaxy” and $25 for “Super Mario Galaxy 2,” since only half of the content (the stage designs) is new? Regardless of this missed opportunity for Nintendo to make a statement in the marketplace, I was motivated to play and enjoy both ‘Galaxy’ games when they were released because the sequel had as much content as an expansion pack. At the same time, neither ‘Galaxy’ game has had any DLC released for it, providing two distinct, self-contained, and finite game experiences.
Yet publishers don’t care about the customer’s experience beyond making it ‘good enough’ that the customer will buy DLC and sequels. Digital distribution is supposed to drive prices down, yet adding up all the DLC for any of the games I’ve mentioned in this article effectively doubles their price. It has come to the point where I’m afraid I’m going to have to stop buying DLC unless it comes as part of an expansion pack or Game of the Year Edition of a game I have held-off on buying (probably due to apprehension about an inevitable GotY Edition with lots of ‘free’ extras). Jumping back into a completed game I haven’t touched for months just doesn’t work for me. If all the DLC is there (and doesn’t cost extra) when I start, I will play and possibly enjoy it. But when DLC comes after a long wait and is followed by a sequel that doesn’t include it, it’s difficult to find the motivation to decide between taking a brief dip in stagnant waters or getting ripped-off on ‘new’ content I already own.
Comments
Chris Kavan - wrote on 11/13/12 at 09:22 AM CT
I did the same thing for Fallout 3 and Borderlands - I have the DLC, but never actually got around to playing most of them. The GotY edition is really the way to go... if you can wait for it (I'm holding out for the Mass Effect 3 - I know others are doing the same for Skyrim). Of course, games like Soul Caliber 5 will never get an updated release, so you're stuck with paying more for what amounts to "virtual doll clothes" as you put it.
Nick - wrote on 11/11/12 at 03:44 PM CT
I bought some DLC for Gran Turismo 5, and regret the decision. It gave me a few new cars and a new real-world track, which is cool, but doesn't integrate with the existing game. You basically have another track to practice on, or play with friends on. It makes it pretty pointless. Plus it was, if I remember right, $12 bucks. DLC is just a way for the company to milk money from customers, cause they can put in little to no effort and profit.
