Downloadable Contempt (Part 1)

Downloadable content has become a huge part of gaming culture over the last ten years. With every major console having full access to the internet and Steam opening up the market for anyone with a PC, the way we acquire and play games has change dramatically. Multiplayer has become bigger, better, and easy to enjoy with thousands, even millions worldwide. The purchasing of games has steadily begun to eliminate the need for brick and mortar stores.

The most controversial change to come from the advent of online gaming, however, seems to be the way expansion packs have changed their form, becoming what we today know as "Downloadable Content."

Downloadable content, for those unsure of it's nature and premise, is widely considered as extra content for the game, sold at a small price. The exchange of money for these goods is commonly referred to as a "micro-transaction". The content is meant as a post-production manner of extending the life of a game and, let's face it, to continue marketing off of a game's success.

However, the reason this has become so controversial over the last few years is the way some companies have been approaching the concept. While the core concept of expanding upon a game has always been the cornerstone of DLC development, a few companies which I will refrain from naming have been, as some say, "nickle and diming" people by actually cutting core content and forcing them to pay to incorporate it back into the game.

I will go on record to say: Yes, there have been several companies which have done exactly that. I certainly do not approve of the practice and I find myself increasingly frustrated with companies who think it's OK to extort money out of their consumers. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes it's just a transparent money-grab which customers should not put up with.

However, I'm not going to necessarily talk about those practices and, instead, go out of my way to speak my piece on two companies which, of late, have come under heavy fire for their attempts to streamline their DLC distribution.

(Due to the length of these, I'll be discussing only Bioware in this first part, covering the second company in the second.)

Mass Effect 3, the third installment in the epic sci-fi action RPG series Mass Effect, recently launched. With it, a day-one DLC called "From Ashes" was released it as DLC for $10 or as part of the $80 Collector's Edition. This DLC contained a new squad member, along with a character-specific mission. It should be noted that this DLC features elements which are also relevant to the games mythos, expanding upon significant details within the games universe.

Bioware has come under heavy fire for this decision, unfortunately. It's not hard to put two and two together and realize that this content was being worked on before the release of the game. A significant amount of people felt like they were/are being exploited by this, being forced to pay for content that could have been packaged with the game or even content that WAS meant to be packaged with the game but was cut and repackaged as DLC.

Of course, Bioware was slow to act and respond and, even then, a lot of people took it as covering their asses. They essentially told everyone that "the content in “From Ashes” was developed by a separate team (after the core game was finished) and not completed until well after the main game went into certification."

As I said, many people did not respond well. "It should still be part of the game!" "You didn't charge us for Zaeed!" "It's an integral part of the game's mythos!" People were still furious that they would be forced to spend an extra $10 the same day as the game's release when the content was finished beforehand.

My personal opinion is that this is a somewhat unreasonable demand. The way a lot of companies actually work on a game consists of pre-production, actual development time, then testing and bug fixes. During the last stages of development and into the testing period, many game developers will either focus their main studio or have a separate production team focus on DLC to be released when finished.

Something VERY IMPORTANT to note here: DLC is, under this model, not considered as part of the initial budget. The content does effect the actual game, but it is produced separately FROM it. Thus, the costs are NOT covered by the $60 you are spending for the game itself, but instead covered by micro-transactions. To demand that it be included in the game at $60 is basically saying that no one should be paid for the time and work that went into the development of that extra content.

Also, consider the following: If the content had been released two months later, would you have been so upset? If you'd heard that the content had been under development after the release of the game, would you have been more understanding? If you would, then consider that both scenarios are *exactly the same*. The same amount of time, money, and resources were spent on the DLC and someone needs to be paid for it.

If, instead, you're one of the people frustrated that Bioware made such an important part of the game's story DLC, consider this: Would you rather mediocre DLC that does NOT tie into the universe at all? Or would you rather captivating, relevant content that you actually WANT TO PAY FOR?

Ultimately, Bioware is being accused of money gouging when really, anyone who understands the way that the content is produced and distributed should know better. That's the unfortunate consequence, though, of having a business that not everyone DOES understand and is usually not actively transparent.

Part 2 will follow soon!