For all those that are complaining about paid DLC...


(Galaxy) #1

Now that we are approaching the release of the first DLC pack and that we know that it will be paid for some people (supposedly that don’t download it on the first two weeks) it seems it has opened the can of worms on the subject of paid DLC. Many people are complaining primarily that it will fragment a frail community.

But I just wanted to point that what is the alternative then? Free DLC for everybody for ever? Sorry but one way or another that will never absolutely happen.

Some point out that TF2 gives free DLC all the time, but they seem to forget that the game has a paid item shop that came out last year or so precisely because Valve were not making much money from the game at that point. And yes I know, you could get all the items through crafting, but it’s the same thing with many free-to-play mmorpgs, it’s always worse and takes more time to get items for free and in the end, when it took you so long to acquire some items and then a new update comes and everybody is running with the new items while you wait for eternal random chances… you’ll cave in, and spend money, it’s a proven business model. And thought I know one of the benefits of the model is that maps are free, the item shop thing just messed my perception of the game for me and many others. What many people don’t realise is that if you care about all that the game has to offer, in the end you’ll spend WAY more money with an item shop model than with a DLC pack model.

That was one of the reasons why I left TF2 and was looking forward to Brink. I even posted on this forums before release, asking people if they thought that Brink would have a item shop, and the general consensus was that nobody wanted a shop but DLC packs were fine.

So I might make people remember that if you want more content for Brink, it’s either paid DLC packs, or a cosmetic item shop model, or no more updates, period, and sadly not even game tweaks and technical fixes. SD have to get paid for their time working and Bethesda will only pay if there is more benefit to gain, as any company would do. The only difference is that Bethesda is a company that specifically relies heavily on the strategy of releasing a game unfinished and patching it later, and this is the bad side of that strategy: it relies on post-release support from the player for the game to be fixed, meaning that even though the perception for the player is ‘I paid for a full game so I expect the game to be completed for the initial price’ it’s not like that… it’s more like ‘if you want it fixed pay more for DLC’. It’s sad and wrong but it’s the only option we have now, and I’ll take it because I genuinely love Brink.

Maybe they could just release new maps for free having only to pay for extra outfits? What about abilities and attachments? They also affect the game, so it would then be release maps + abilities + attachments for free and… only have to pay for outfits? Do you think many people then will care about paying only for outfits then? Do you think the money obtained from outfits would cover all the time spent on creating all the other extra content? Would that be enough money to make the producers interested on keeping investing on the game?

After all, we are not talking about a game that has very large and established fanbase like TF2 when they started to charge for items. It always works the same way, for example if they started charging for stupid cosmetic items like ‘coloured glasses’ on COD, many people would still buy them because they are already very invested on the game and now ‘need’ everything that it has to offer, but in a new game you wouldn’t make much money just out of cosmetic items.

So in my opinion the only factor to complain about (when we know about it) is the price itself of the DLC packs, but if you don’t want paid DLC then you won’t have more updates.


(riptide) #2

2 words. Guild Wars.


(Galaxy) #3

It’s and episodic game model, meaning that you pay for more episodes, just like you pay for more DLC packs. And if you are referring to supporting a game for a fixed initial price, I’m not saying it can’t be done, in fact, it should be that way, since, though you don’t gain as much money, you create a very strong and positive reputation with your customers that makes them buy successive games you put out, and that is when you gain the money, just like Valve does.

But what is it you are suggesting that they do with Brink then?


(its al bout security) #4

the guy that made this post is a freaking genius


(haccess) #5

Sorry but this isn’t the best comparison, as it’s not really fair to Brink. TF2 had great reviews and tons of dedicated players right out of the gate. Continual content updates for free over an extremely long time helped it gain popularity, more and more people bought the game on recommendations from friends who were playing it. Valve didn’t add an item shop because they weren’t making money, they were already rolling in money. On PC there are 60,749 people playing TF2 right now and 341 playing Brink. Which model do you think has more profit potential?

Valve was both developer and publisher for their game. SD has to deal with Bethesda. Bethesda being the same company that charged for horse armor in Oblivion. Brink is doing things like “you can’t join this server because your rank is too high” and “that free dlc we talked about? download it during a 2 week period or you’ll have to buy it”. Brink is in a delicate stage right now, and paid DLC hurts it more than it will help it.


(Galaxy) #6

[QUOTE=haccess;345115]Sorry but this isn’t the best comparison, as it’s not really fair to Brink. TF2 had great reviews and tons of dedicated players right out of the gate. Continual content updates for free over an extremely long time helped it gain popularity, more and more people bought the game on recommendations from friends who were playing it. Valve didn’t add an item shop because they weren’t making money, they were already rolling in money. On PC there are 60,749 people playing TF2 right now and 341 playing Brink. Which model do you think has more profit potential?

Valve was both developer and publisher for their game. SD has to deal with Bethesda. Bethesda being the same company that charged for horse armor in Oblivion. Brink is doing things like “you can’t join this server because your rank is too high” and “that free dlc we talked about? download it during a 2 week period or you’ll have to buy it”. Brink is in a delicate stage right now, and paid DLC hurts it more than it will help it.[/QUOTE]

It’s only my theory but when they started with the item shop one year ago, I think most people that were going to buy TF2 already bought it, it was only 20$ after all, many times a lot less on sales. Why do you think they went now with the free-to-play model? It’s because though there are always more people that haven’t played the game, most that would have bought it already did. I know I bought the game years ago and since then there were many big free updates, now why was Valve doing that? They are paid workers after all, not hobbyists, someone had to pay for their time, and I know me and many others that had the game for a long time did not pay a single dollar more for years. The only conclusion is that it was a long term investment (though I know that they also use TF2 as a creative experimental outlet inside the company).

Now they can get away with charging ridiculous amount for cosmetic items because as you say the game was a good one and well received but also, being a consequence of that plus the free updates, because they created such a big following that cares a lot about the game. Just think of the big cultural impact that the game characters have right now, they are practically internet icons. Now they just have to spend very little time making the polygon model for a hat and charge the price that they had been charging for the full game that they spent years creating, multiply that several times per player and per all players still playing the game. It’s no wonder valve is now encouraging other developers to follow this business model.

When you have an online game, if you treat your customers well and continually release more updates, that will probably mean they’ll keep playing, in online games people bring in more people into the game, thus making more sales and supporting financially the game’s updates. You do this until a player ceiling has been reached and then you release extra content or change the business model, again just like they did with TF2. It’s also a good strategy but one that relies on long term investment and believing on your product, something that Bethesda didn’t apparently have with Brink as producers for the game.


(its al bout security) #7

[QUOTE=haccess;345115]Sorry but this isn’t the best comparison, as it’s not really fair to Brink. TF2 had great reviews and tons of dedicated players right out of the gate. Continual content updates for free over an extremely long time helped it gain popularity, more and more people bought the game on recommendations from friends who were playing it. Valve didn’t add an item shop because they weren’t making money, they were already rolling in money. On PC there are 60,749 people playing TF2 right now and 341 playing Brink. Which model do you think has more profit potential?

Valve was both developer and publisher for their game. SD has to deal with Bethesda. Bethesda being the same company that charged for horse armor in Oblivion. Brink is doing things like “you can’t join this server because your rank is too high” and “that free dlc we talked about? download it during a 2 week period or you’ll have to buy it”. Brink is in a delicate stage right now, and paid DLC hurts it more than it will help it.[/QUOTE]

what if they slated it to never be free? huh would people have still bought it? yes i think they would u just jelly if u dont get it free das all


(haccess) #8

I think they went with the free-to-play model because they “get it”. They already have a large playerbase but understand to keep it large they need to keep attracting more players.

It’s also noteworthy that all the stuff that costs money in the TF2 item store can be obtained through random drops and trading. The costs involved are simply first-access costs, as you can get that fancy hat for free if you wait and do some trading. I realize not all developers/publishers can be Valve-like in their business practices, but Bethesda should know that game sales grow exponentially when a multiplayer game offers more bang for the buck and gains word-of-mouth support.


(Zekariah) #9

Why is this such an “up in arms” issue?

IT…IS…FREE

This is NOT a paid for DLC if you get it straight away.

The Brink community is not gonna get bigger by saying: “Free DLC! Download whenever you want! Hey, take your time, there’s no rush.”

But push a LIMITED offer to those who are thinking about getting it and ‘BAM’! “Quick! While its free!”

EVERYBODY has the opportunity to get this for free. Just like EVERYBODY has the option to attend the “End Of Financial Year Sales” in shops. There is no “All Year Round Take Your Time Sale”!

This is more likely to build the Brink Community than permanantly free DLC

Let’s just get the word around and hope SD/Bethesda advertise the crap out of their game this time!


(its al bout security) #10

[QUOTE=Zekariah;345121]Why is this such an “up in arms” issue?

IT…IS…FREE

This is NOT a paid for DLC if you get it straight away.

The Brink community is not gonna get bigger by saying: “Free DLC! Download whenever you want! Hey, take your time, there’s no rush.”

But push a LIMITED offer to those who are thinking about getting it and ‘BAM’! “Quick! While its free!”

EVERYBODY has the opportunity to get this for free. Just like EVERYBODY has the option to attend the “End Of Financial Year Sales” in shops. There is no “All Year Round Take Your Time Sale”!

This is more likely to build the Brink Community than permanantly free DLC

Let’s just get the word around and hope SD/Bethesda advertise the crap out of their game this time![/QUOTE]

LOOK YET ANOTHER GENIUS!

love how people know exactly what they are talking about later at night (or whatever time you guys have) but its late here


(Shadowcat) #11

No, hes right. After a certain point, everyone who is going to pay for the game at a given price point already has. If someone doesnt want to buy the game at $20, then no amount of new content is going to make them buy the game. Giving the game to them and then charging them for optional items once they are hooked COULD work, while losing nothing on all of the players who already paid for it.


(Zekariah) #12

[QUOTE=its al bout security;345123]LOOK YET ANOTHER GENIUS!

love how people know exactly what they are talking about later at night (or whatever time you guys have) but its late here[/QUOTE]

It’s bright and shiny at 2:30pm here. If it was as late as where you are, I’d probably be writing like ukrtfn8o47hlj 4h3fbinhiqhknl mjd3j3d2;’


(wolfnemesis75) #13

The DLC is free. Just make sure you download it in the first 2 weeks it is available. Problem solved.


(Galaxy) #14

[QUOTE=haccess;345120]I think they went with the free-to-play model because they “get it”. They already have a large playerbase but understand to keep it large they need to keep attracting more players.

It’s also noteworthy that all the stuff that costs money in the TF2 item store can be obtained through random drops and trading. The costs involved are simply first-access costs, as you can get that fancy hat for free if you wait and do some trading. I realize not all developers/publishers can be Valve-like in their business practices, but Bethesda should know that game sales grow exponentially when a multiplayer game offers more bang for the buck and gains word-of-mouth support.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the strategy of supporting you customers for free is profitable since it brings more sales, and when new sale potential is limited you bring more content. An then if you product gathers a big following you can then put in place other ways of gaining money (think about the new COD elite thing on top of TF2’s item shop), and though personally I do not like this last stages of game marketing it is incredibly profitable, since as I said also think how much time it takes to create just a simple graphic model for a hat, and how they can charge the price of a full game that takes years to develop at the very least!

But as I posted before it involves time investment and believing on your product, if you factor how Bethesda marketed Brink (big hype advertising, no beta, no demo, review embargo) it seems that hey didn’t want to take that route and instead went with the easy cash in as quickly as you can, and then dispose of the game and even the developer’s reputation. So now it seems the only chance to get further support with Brink is to pay for future DLC.


(haccess) #15

If you think a limited time offer of free: two maps, two costumes & some weapons are going to bring in a massive influx of players jumping on that deal, willing to buy a game that had such a poor launch. Then yeah, that limited time freebie will totally be the savior of the game.

I’m happy to get the first DLC for free. I like the game and want to play it. I worry that after two weeks is up there won’t be enough new players to matter, no one else will be interested and there will still just be the two or three active objective/stopwatch servers & a few people dinking around in campaign mode against bots, forever.


(Galaxy) #16

[QUOTE=haccess;345131]If you think a limited time offer of free: two maps, two costumes & some weapons are going to bring in a massive influx of players jumping on that deal, willing to buy a game that had such a poor launch. Then yeah, that limited time freebie will totally be the savior of the game.

I’m happy to get the first DLC for free. I like the game and want to play it. I worry that after two weeks is up there won’t be enough new players to matter, no one else will be interested and there will still just be the two or three active objective/stopwatch servers & a few people dinking around in campaign mode against bots, forever.[/QUOTE]

It’s not the perfect solution, I mean if you really wanted to create a massive influx of players at any cost you would have to greatly reduce the price of the game or something, but the limited 2 weeks is a clever move, and the most effective last chance they’ll have to continue with the game’s current business model. In other words, it probably won’t be the ‘salvation of the game’, but it is going to be the biggest help they can’t get without making very drastic decisions.


(its al bout security) #17

u are in the exact opposite part of the world that i used to live in 12 hours diffence and everything. i shoulda figured i guess


(its al bout security) #18

so many smart people come out of this thread its hard to manage my stupidity some times


(Zekariah) #19

[QUOTE=haccess;345131]If you think a limited time offer of free: two maps, two costumes & some weapons are going to bring in a massive influx of players jumping on that deal, willing to buy a game that had such a poor launch. Then yeah, that limited time freebie will totally be the savior of the game.

I’m happy to get the first DLC for free. I like the game and want to play it. I worry that after two weeks is up there won’t be enough new players to matter, no one else will be interested and there will still just be the two or three active objective/stopwatch servers & a few people dinking around in campaign mode against bots, forever.[/QUOTE]

I was making a comparison. Personally I think we have seen the high point in the Brink community already. Hardly anyone has heard of this game in OZ. There was little to no advertising. So…no, I don’t think it will “save” this games’ population. But if SD/Bethesda want to get any more players, then a sense of urgency is the last Hail Mary.

‘Free forever’ gives noone a push to get their freebie. It just sits there so ppl can think: “I got time” and then forget about it.


(riptide) #20

[QUOTE=Galaxy;345113]It’s and episodic game model, meaning that you pay for more episodes, just like you pay for more DLC packs. And if you are referring to supporting a game for a fixed initial price, I’m not saying it can’t be done, in fact, it should be that way, since, though you don’t gain as much money, you create a very strong and positive reputation with your customers that makes them buy successive games you put out, and that is when you gain the money, just like Valve does.

But what is it you are suggesting that they do with Brink then?[/QUOTE]

Release the SDK and let the community do the work for free. Then if they have to charge console users for the content… give the mappers/modders a small portion of the sales. You know like Valve does…

You act as if F2P TF2 was planned from the get go after all those free updates over the past 3-4 years… even then the community assisted in many of the updates…

I can say if the game is good… I would support their efforts if they released new cosmetic changes or additional character slots or whatever. Whether or not I even wanted them. I did it with Guild Wars and they haven’t released an expansion since 2007 and it’s still free to play with no subscription and they pay for the servers. They have been releasing free content this entire time too.

Like I said in another post ArenaNet(/ncsoft) and Valve know what they are doing, Activision and this? Not so much…