Kupek wrote:Zeus wrote:What about Assassin's Creed 2? They left out 2 sequences specifically to charge for DLC.
How are you sure they did it for that reason? Having DLC ready on day one does not mean that content could have gone into the physical disc sold at retail. What you buy in the store is code that was completed maybe as long as two months prior. There's significant QA testing the developers have to do internally, and then there's the approval process through Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo.
It's conceivable that developers could commit final code for this process, continue development, and then have some DLC ready on day one.
This is a bit of a long post 'cause I got some unexpected extra info after my initial response (first three paragraphs). Read through it all, it's a good learning experience. Was for me.
Because there was an article back during the Xmas season where they basically admitted that they held it back for DLC. Back before the game was released, they said "yeah, we couldn't finish them in time so we held them back" (yeah, that didn't reek of BS) but in that article they basically admitted to holding them back specifically for DLC. Not only that, if you play the game, you can CLEARLY tell they cut out the chapters (it just jumps from one part of the game to the ending sequence suddenly) so they basically gave us an unfinished game and forced you to pay extra to get the "complete experience". If I recall, I posted here and bitched about it back then. I can't remember if I posted the article (I THINK it was a 1up article but I can't find it).
If I remember correctly, it's a little under a month between code hand it (going gold) and distribution to retail. I can ask my bud if you'd like to get a clearer lead time.
Kup, I don't mean to sound like an ass, but it's really common sense and a "good business move" for them to hold back content that could be in the game and ready to be put on the disc before it goes gold 'cause they know the sheep will pay for it. I mean, are you not doin' your job as an employee of these companies unless you "explore all possible revenue streams"? What the article in this thread was sayin' is that they're doing this to get past the cap set by M$ and Sony which I believe (my opinion) makes a lot of sense. The whole "well, we couldn't finish it in time before it went gold" is just a BS PR schpeil that really means "we think you'll pay extra for it so we'll just hold it back and nickle and dime you some more later".
That doesn't mean that all DLC is held back on purpose or BS or not worth it. Look at Fallout 3 or Borderlands, they're like extensions of the game not missing core experiences. But what we're starting to see now is planned holdback in-game content that is a part of the core game in order to charge for DLC later. Assassin's Creed 2 is the most blatant example of that, along with Mega Man 9 and 10 (specific modes and even playable characters held back on purpose and available day 1 as a DLC) but they certainly aren't the only games to try this (lookin' at you, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2; oddly, that's an Activision game, the other company I was bitching about above for employing this same tactic; EA also tried it and got reemed big time for the unlock codes for Need for Speed Carbon, which is why they may have gotten away from that).
To further consider the possibility of a time crunch vs a planned dick move, I specifically asked my friend (happened to be online at the time) who used to work at Ubisoft whether or not it's a possibility that they held it back on purpose instead of them just running out of time. He said that the studio is internally famous for trying to do too much and running out of time, which is why the first game had great ideas but was ultimately a shitty gaming experience (but great storyline). He specifically called it a "tech demo" which is also what his one friend on the team called it as well. But that's for original games, not sequels. As far as AC2 is concerned, he indicated that since it was a sequel and that they were well beyond the tech demo stage, so it's a very real possibility that this was planned as opposed to a time crunch. He didn't say "fuck yeah, they did it" but he did say that it was a real possibility. He said the only way it would be a "for sure" is if the actual content was already on the disc. I argued that they'd be smart enough to just exclude it from the disc since so many of the DLC customer base are savvy enough to know that a 108kb download is simply an unlock code whereas a 500MB download is real content. You know what his exact response was word for word? "This is Ubisoft we're talking about. They have disdain for their customers" (I copied that from MSN). I would think that his responses lend a lot more credence to my theory than yours.
On an even further note, after I asked him about this, he mentioned something which intrigued me. Here's a partial transcript of our conversation (complete with typos) copied from my MSN log:
Him:"There's no way in hell any company makes the DLC outside of the dev cycle"
Me: "But doesn't the dev cycle now extend beyond retail release?"
Him:"No, at least I don't think so. They develop both the core game and DLC at the same time. The studio heads now expect more from the same amount of time".
Me: "OK, so now they're actually developing DLC at the exact same time? So really, it could ALL be ready for retail release?"
Him:"Exactly"
Me: "You're fucking kidding me........basically, it's all ready to go and they just hold it back for DLC?"
Him:"If there's one I know, it's that they grab people away from projects nearly done to put them onto other projects. So before that Art Director leaves for his next assignment, or those 4 senior levels designers leave, the studio heads want to damn well make sure they also work on the DLC. Which makes sense because you want the DLC to have the same "look" and "feel" as the core game"
Me:"SO they have to finish the DLC before that dev cylce is over to ensure it feels like the rest of the game, yes?"
Him:"yes"
Him:"I mean, I'm not saying the DLC and the core are started simultaneously....but at some point, they do dovetail."
Me:"But they are both finished by the time the game goes gold 'cause if they're not, the other people are off of the projects and the heads don't want that"
Him:"Right. It makes perfect sense. The programmers and the QA Testers have to make sure both the DLC and the core function together without bugs"
And from a business point of view, I completely agree with that strategy and it makes sense. If I were a game developer and I knew the sheep would fall for it, I'd do it too. But as a consumer, this means it's actually far worse than I initially feared. He basically just confirmed that nearly all DLC, even the perceived "extra chapters" like in Fallout 3 (he specifically mentioned that in his opinion, those were ready when the game went gold; that's why they were available relatively early after release, particularly for an RPG), are actually specifically-planned portions of the game that could be on a disc but are not in an attempt to increase and extend revenue streams. Basically, ALL DLC is a slap in the face not just the blatant ones like AC2. Sure, there's a possibility that some companies follow a different business model and development cycle (Valve would be the most likely company considering their relatively small size, independence, and curator of Steam) but they would likely be more the exception than the rule.
You know, I may bitch and complain a lot but quite often, there's a real reason for it (look at my endless bitching about Bell and Rogers; the more we learn about their behind-the-scenes business practices, the worse it is). Many corps give me tons of reasons to bitch and complain and, as pessimistic as I may seem (I'm actually not; you'd know that if you talked to me in real life), I actually underestimate the extent to which companies will fuck us. Of course, when I find out, it just makes me bitch and complain even more :-)