We all know creating video games take a lot of time and effort (at the very least the AAA-titles). It's hard to say in advance when exactly all aspects of the game will be done, as bugs may prove to be much harder to debug or gameplay elements may be harder to "get right" than expected. In any case, deadlines are estimations.
For console games, there's also the certification process that takes extra time to complete. The testing, censoring and that sort of stuff takes time as well. As you may know, Watch_dogs is currently finished. Or "it's gone gold". The main reason it's not in stores yet (as of writing) is because of the certification process by sony and microsoft (and nintendo somewhere down the line).
The thread title and poll refers to what developers should do in this time. I normally wouldn't have bothered caring about it, but then this news happened: nintendo goes for DLC. In other words: you can buy extra content (DLC) on top of the actual game. Including day 1 DLC.
As you can read in the linked thread, people aren't happy with the decision. And I have to agree that at first glance it sort of sounds like a hidden cost for the "actual" game. But thanks to the guys at extra credits (please watch this video...it's fun to watch AND gives plenty of info on all angles), you'll see there's another side to this.
Hence the question: what should developers do after creating the actual game?
Before I do a rundown of the options, I'll have to stress this very important part:
When it says "Nothing", I actually mean "Nothing but bugfixes and patches to make sure the game is playable".
That's a pretty straightforward thing. You can argue to what degree a developer is responsible to make sure the game is playable, but it'll be another discussion. For now, assume basic bugfixes and stuff are to be handled anyway and it'll be about extra content.
A rundown of the options:
"Nothing and move on" is the major vote for people against DLC in general. It means that by the time the game is sold in stores, the actual artists will already be working on different projects. And most coders as well (unless game breaking bugs show up).
"Large expansion packs only" is how DLC used to be before it was called that. Half life: blue shift, Red alert counterstrike, starcraft: broodwar...those sort of things. It continues the campaign with about a third to a half of the original content for about half the price. These still exist and make sure that the game itself isn't forgotten (Blizzard does this with pretty much all their known franchises).
"Extended versions are okay, assuming it won't mean compromising on the original version". Collectors edition, ultimate edition, limited editions, bonus-DLC-if-you-preorder...in a way, this is day 1 DLC as well. It just doesn't look like it because it's exclusive to those who pay extra. Perhaps I'm not looking into these things enough, but it seems to me as if gamers love these extra editions as long as they maintain their exclusivity to "just the elite". Or is this just something for figurines?
"All the extra content is fine!". To me, it's obvious that DLC wouldn't be around so much if it didn't sell. And while it sure could lead to situations where the main game is stripped in order to accommodate for DLC or where things are merchandised to the point of sillyness (check the extra credits video for that doom scenario), I'm not so sure that it is actually such a bad direction. You only buy DLC for a game you like, and since you can save a lot of money on steam sales (to name one), it's not like your budget won't allow for some extras.
"Other, namely...". I'm hesitant to put this one up...I always fear that people are just going straight-out vote for this one, comment the first thing in their mind (usually totally ignoring laws of economics or effort) and not thinking about their vote. But since I'm sure people are going to reply with oneliners like "it depends on the game" anyway, I might as well mention it. By the way...that reminds me of another important thing:
Free to play games don't count in this poll.
It should be pretty obvious why not, but since this is gbatemp, I'll mention it anyay. So if you don't see the reason, read the following very slowly:
Creating...games...takes...time...and...effort...Developers...want...to...get...payed...for...that...effort...It...DOESN'T...make...them...evil.
So...that'll do for now. I'm curious what you all think.
For console games, there's also the certification process that takes extra time to complete. The testing, censoring and that sort of stuff takes time as well. As you may know, Watch_dogs is currently finished. Or "it's gone gold". The main reason it's not in stores yet (as of writing) is because of the certification process by sony and microsoft (and nintendo somewhere down the line).
The thread title and poll refers to what developers should do in this time. I normally wouldn't have bothered caring about it, but then this news happened: nintendo goes for DLC. In other words: you can buy extra content (DLC) on top of the actual game. Including day 1 DLC.
As you can read in the linked thread, people aren't happy with the decision. And I have to agree that at first glance it sort of sounds like a hidden cost for the "actual" game. But thanks to the guys at extra credits (please watch this video...it's fun to watch AND gives plenty of info on all angles), you'll see there's another side to this.
Hence the question: what should developers do after creating the actual game?
Before I do a rundown of the options, I'll have to stress this very important part:
When it says "Nothing", I actually mean "Nothing but bugfixes and patches to make sure the game is playable".
That's a pretty straightforward thing. You can argue to what degree a developer is responsible to make sure the game is playable, but it'll be another discussion. For now, assume basic bugfixes and stuff are to be handled anyway and it'll be about extra content.
A rundown of the options:
"Nothing and move on" is the major vote for people against DLC in general. It means that by the time the game is sold in stores, the actual artists will already be working on different projects. And most coders as well (unless game breaking bugs show up).
"Large expansion packs only" is how DLC used to be before it was called that. Half life: blue shift, Red alert counterstrike, starcraft: broodwar...those sort of things. It continues the campaign with about a third to a half of the original content for about half the price. These still exist and make sure that the game itself isn't forgotten (Blizzard does this with pretty much all their known franchises).
"Extended versions are okay, assuming it won't mean compromising on the original version". Collectors edition, ultimate edition, limited editions, bonus-DLC-if-you-preorder...in a way, this is day 1 DLC as well. It just doesn't look like it because it's exclusive to those who pay extra. Perhaps I'm not looking into these things enough, but it seems to me as if gamers love these extra editions as long as they maintain their exclusivity to "just the elite". Or is this just something for figurines?
"All the extra content is fine!
". To me, it's obvious that DLC wouldn't be around so much if it didn't sell. And while it sure could lead to situations where the main game is stripped in order to accommodate for DLC or where things are merchandised to the point of sillyness (check the extra credits video for that doom scenario), I'm not so sure that it is actually such a bad direction. You only buy DLC for a game you like, and since you can save a lot of money on steam sales (to name one), it's not like your budget won't allow for some extras."Other, namely...". I'm hesitant to put this one up...I always fear that people are just going straight-out vote for this one, comment the first thing in their mind (usually totally ignoring laws of economics or effort) and not thinking about their vote. But since I'm sure people are going to reply with oneliners like "it depends on the game" anyway, I might as well mention it. By the way...that reminds me of another important thing:
Free to play games don't count in this poll.
It should be pretty obvious why not, but since this is gbatemp, I'll mention it anyay. So if you don't see the reason, read the following very slowly:
Creating...games...takes...time...and...effort...Developers...want...to...get...payed...for...that...effort...It...DOESN'T...make...them...evil.
So...that'll do for now. I'm curious what you all think.
