IanHamlett wrote:

Whether or not there's going to be DLC, the scale and price of that DLC, is decided early on in development. If that DLC is ready to go at the same time as the disk, that doesn't mean they should, or even could, give it away.

Exactly this. Development isn't simply 'you work on the game until gold milestone then release everything you have in one go'. If a chunk of the budget and time has been used specifically for post-release content then it will be released post-release. If it's finished it may go on the disk. Simple.

Re. netcode, that shit's difficult, I feel for the guys no doubt working all hours atm trying to fix these things. Pressure can come from many sides to get a game out, not just from the publisher.

Obnoxious DLC and netcode problems are tangentially related in that they're both caused by the same thing - a real lack of discernment from players in how they spend their money. As soon as publishers and devs start losing money for getting it wrong, or (more likely) those who get it right start making loads more money than the others, things will change. 

As it is, the consumer rewards all the wrong moves. Games that are hyped sell well, then disappoint people, who then go out chasing the next hyped product, often bought in advance without even a single consumer review. DLC is bought in the same way - season passes are bought on release, DLC might turn up at some point. It's then the producer of the game that's blamed because the player now has a shitty product. There should be standards of service expected from the companies, you shouldn't have to buy a broken game and just live with it. But companies aren't going to come along and just offer these up. 

If you want your netcode fixed, stop buying games without knowing whether they're good and whether they work. If they don't work, don't buy them. If you have bought a game and it doesn't work, don't keep playing it in the hope they sort it out, don't support it with DLC and don't buy it's sequel. You will miss out on some fun, lots of frustration and the overall state of the industry will improve if this becomes a broad enough trend. 

Now the problem is that a lot of money comes form stoopid kids buying stuff with their parents money - the kid is stoopid, the parents aren't checking into Destiny's network problems or anything like that. So, buying power can only take you so far. Hence why I think the problem will be solved through differences in how profitable a game is, rather than expecting everyone who bought the game to behave like responsible consumers.

Essentially, players in their late 20s and beyond should really know better by now and start growing up a bit when it comes to this stuff.

monkey wrote:

If you want your netcode fixed, stop buying games without knowing whether they're good and whether they work. If they don't work, don't buy them. 

That's going to be my method from now on. The bother is there's a sweet spot for MP buzz, and a month down the line might be too late for a game to build a following. If a game doesn't launch and work on day one early adopters get their fingers burned and drift away, some who are on the fence see a botched launch and steer clear while others who are waiting for it to be fixed see other games released and get their heads turned.

They really need to get this shit right first time.

Liveinadive wrote:

Consumers could change the scenario by not buying but that shouldn't be necessary as we should be able to claim refunds, which would have the same effect.

Yeah but it doesn't seem like anyone is going to grant these powers without enough agitation. You should be able to get refunds on products that don't work regardless of how you bought them. I know its slightly different but I'm surprised by how easily people were willing to give up the power to trade in a game they don't like. That's the only bit of power a burnt consumer has over a shitty product.

It will improve eventually, even without mass consumer protest or agitation for consumer rights to the relevant bodies that might be able to bring them into being. Like Sparky says, there's a large amount of timing that goes into building a successful online thing. It needs to work from the start. I'm sure the publishers have got all sorts of stats on attach rates - the players that are there buying DLC 12 months after release are probably overwhelmingly the players that got hooked on the game in the first month. It's in their own interests, if they want to build the game as a platform to sell you things, and keep you on board for the sequel, to get the launch right. 

But I agree that a decent refund policy is the most effective thing - these problems would disappear almost immediately. You'd get a load of release dates getting knocked back as devs get spooked by everyone returning, say, Destiny, and they'd make sure they've got their shit in order before it goes out the door, which should really be standard practice anyway.

I'll type it again because I swear I typed it once before, but UK distance selling regulations mean you can get a refund on digital purchases if they are not fit for purpose.

Artorias of the Abyss DLC for Dark Souls strikes me as genuine DLC. Cut content that the devs realised people would actually want after the solid sales of the game. The Crown DLC for 2 are a bit more cynical in hindsight.

The Prince of Persia reboot had a despicable crack at it. They took out the entire epilogue and sold it as DLC.

Lot of self entitlement in here. "Genuine DLC" - what does that mean? "If games must have DLC" - what, you mean if games must have additional content to keep things fresh and offer new things to do? Yeah sounds awful.

What would you all prefer, a release then no updates ever?

Again, no one here knows the budget or production schedule of these games. To think you're entitled to something because it was developed at the same time as the core content is ridiculous. What about film series like LoTR which are filmed back to back? Oh my god, I can't believe they cut out those second two films then sold them on as film DLC later.

@nick I can still enjoy DLC that seems as if it shoulda been in the final release. It's just that Arty came across as something imagined up after the initial release as something they could do. And we saw that it was good.

@Bolly - that's fair enough, I wholeheartedly agree that DLC is great when it's a reaction to success, rather than a pre-planned endeavour. However, surely the notion of preparing things to support your fanbase through a titles lifespan is good? That's just as genuine imo.

nick_md wrote:

People should be glad that they can buy games they enjoy, yes. Is it shitty when there are launch issues? Yes. So server-side issues like matchmaking, the scale of which may only come to light on launch, should mean you bin all your DLC? I agree it's obvious when DLC is taking the piss, but I think what goes for taking the piss here, frankly, takes the piss. Especially the entitlement of 'oh it was developed and finished at the same time therefore I deserve to have it with my purchase'.

If feeling like the laws that protect people when buying any other product/service that's not fit for purpose should also apply to games, then yes, there are a lot of entitled people here. You should be entitled to a refund if a game is fundamentally broken, yet it's very difficult to get any. If bitching about it on a forum is the worst that happens I say they're getting off easy.

And Battlefield 4 wasn't simple launch issues, from what I heard it took about a year to fix. Clearly rushed release that just wasn't ready. The Battlefield series has had netcode problems forever, if the law was on our side people wouldn't have to bitch or just put up with it.

edit: as far as on-disc dlc goes, it's just a matter of opinion. The problem with it is that any currently complete game you care to mention could easily lock out features and require payment for them. You can't know if they planned it as dlc or if it was in there all along. People generally won't moan about it if they feel the game without the dlc is already good value.

Although Firaxis I'm sure have a very orchestrated attitude to drip feeding content for their games many people think should have been in at release. See Civ V and Beyond Earth.

vicinity_of_pie wrote:

nick_md wrote:

People should be glad that they can buy games they enjoy, yes. Is it shitty when there are launch issues? Yes. So server-side issues like matchmaking, the scale of which may only come to light on launch, should mean you bin all your DLC? I agree it's obvious when DLC is taking the piss, but I think what goes for taking the piss here, frankly, takes the piss. Especially the entitlement of 'oh it was developed and finished at the same time therefore I deserve to have it with my purchase'.

If feeling like the laws that protect people when buying any other product/service that's not fit for purpose should also apply to games, then yes, there are a lot of entitled people here. You should be entitled to a refund if a game is fundamentally broken, yet it's very difficult to get any. If bitching about it on a forum is the worst that happens I say they're getting off easy. And Battlefield 4 wasn't simple launch issues, from what I heard it took about a year to fix. Clearly rushed release that just wasn't ready. The Battlefield series has had netcode problems forever, if the law was on our side people wouldn't have to bitch or just put up with it.

Okay, I can certainly get behind your argument about a game that's fundamentally broken, especially to the extent BF4 was. I was railing more against the general criticism of *any* DLC that seemed to be permeating through this thread.

As for consumer laws, it's tricky. Like I said above, yeah I agree as consumers we should be entitled to some sort of compensation if a service is broken. However, I can also see how immensely complex modern games/matchmaking is. The people making these games aren't idiots, and they're clearly struggling in a lot of cases. Maybe I'm just too prepared to give a little leeway to the devs. 12 months is clearly unacceptable, but as I said previously, major issues can only come to light once you've launched. There will never be a sure fire way to prevent launch issues on every single title. You could develop your game for years and years, be super confident, launch it, then get live issues that simply didn't occur during test. It's nay easy pal.

I'm loath to sound like I'm defending particular titles, or rushed games, 'cause I don't mean to. I'm more just trying to add some counter balance. And yeah just once again I agree with you on BF4, that sounds like a clusterfuck.

@nick_md
Sorry, yeah I added a bit about on disc dlc.

edit: Also, I think we pretty much agree, I'm also totally willing to give leeway but I can see how some people would get pretty angry if you've just splashed out 40-50 quid (and maybe more on a new console) and you're spending your free time in frustration waiting for it to work.

Also, I just don't like the term entitled being thrown around, you're at the very least entitled to your opinion on on-disc dlc if you've spent upwards of £40 on it. It's the developers/publishers I feel are the entitled ones sometimes. Releasing shoddy games and blaming piracy or second hand sales when it doesn't return huge profits. They prey on impatient people, it's the people who can wait until the GOTY edition comes out who get the entire thing for less.

I can't take an argument seriously when the word entitlement is used as a negative.

If I spend $100 on a game, it better fucking work or I get every red cent back.

they have a way to test XBL network stuff pre release, they call it a Beta. It being hard is no excuse, MCC isn't a complete networking mess right now isn't because it's hard, it's because it isn't ready.