A DLC Future for Command & Conquer?

[Sonic 296]

In a post on the Official C&C Forums, someone asked if EA has any plans to release DLC content for future Command & Conquer games. There are even suggestions that Red Alert 3 Uprising should have been a free DLC release as opposed to it's retail download only release. APOC, the long serving and ever present community manager, has responded to this question in a very detailed and lengthy post.

 

It depends what you classify as "DLC", as most people generously associate that word with XBOX 360 or Playstation 3, which publishers hardly ever give free DLC to. A lot of publishers, ourselves included, give free console DLC such as map packs, new outfits, weapons, skins, etc, and then ensuing packs are charged for. That's micro-transaction business 101 for ya =) The basics at least. Console gamers certainly don't get the same level of tech patch support as PC gamers, but ironically, that has more to do with the technical and policy issues of "patching" console games. Its significantly less an expectation as well. PC gamers expect it, console gamers do not, weird yes, true yes.

 

"DLC" on PC I would rather look at as patches, maps, and sometimes new missions and weapon/character skins. And once in a blue moon, new game modes, which to Valves credit they have been rockstars at with Team Fortress 2.

 

When it comes to PC, Valve has one pretty big advantage WITH THEIR OWN GAMES when it comes to giving away free DLC, if they choose to do so...STEAM. Their service is conceptually the same as XBOX Live and PSN, wherein there games are bound to STEAM whether you buy them online or in a box, which makes it very easy for them to serve up additional content FREE or PAID to user accounts. Similar to C&C 4, if we had a digital store tied in, we could have done the same, flowing out free and paid "DLC" month to month.

 

Everyone else for PC, unless you're an MMO, doesn't have that luxury because STEAM is a retailer to us. So if we give free DLC out, that means everyone must get it, no matter where they purchased it from. Or unless you have an in-game store.

 

Red Alert 3: Uprising was a single-player digital download expansion pack. We contemplated selling it in a box as well, or re-packaging it with Red Alert 3, but at the end of the day, the PERCENTAGE user base that would be purchasing (30% average of your base game sales), wasn't substantial enough to justify the massive expense to sell in-store. I wish I could say retail store channels are free and boxing up a game is free, but that would be far from the truth. Google "COGS", and research "cost of goods and services". There is no doubt that is part of the larger pie that is the rise of digital downloads and micro-transactions.

 

AND TO YOUR POINT, the game itself was right at that line of being a true expansion with multiplayer (like KW / ZH), and a smaller expansion without, which is what it turned out as. That being said, the amount of content from the SP missions to Commanders Challenge to the wealth of professionally made multiplayer maps is more than justifiable as paid content.

 

Uprising had a packaged SP campaign, tons of new units, and the Commanders Challenge (which was made in to an XBOX/PSN Arcade title, not free). The amount of work and budget that went into that was over 6 months, and that alone does not justify our ability to provide that to you free. Had we just added a few units, maybe just one SP campaign, I would absolutely agree FREE would be justifiable. We never EVER charge for patches, and the amount of work that goes in to every patch is always significant whether its a week or a month, but improving/fixing quality of the game is not something that should ever be charged for. Additional content is always a point of contention that you'll find most disagree with on the word FREE.

 

The modders such as Bibber would not have been able to create their mods without extensive help from myself and JonWil, in providing assets and expanded tools long after Uprising came out, at which point, we were totally fine. Bibbers mod, while it may have many of the units, doesn't have the single-player missions, Commanders Challenge, and one really big caveat, requires you own Red Alert 3. The Uprising expansion was standalone, so you did not need RA3 to play it. Bibbers mod is amazing, but its really just making it possible for you to use Uprising units in RA3, which was something we cut during the process for reasons that are long gone now.

 

At the end of the day, no dev team or publishers creates DLC for free, or to charge without knowing what the ROI (return on investment) is. A team can't spend 6-8 months on a significant expansion, put it out for free, and receive nothing in return. That's just business 101 to keep our lights on. It's a lot different when say, we're making maps, or smaller doses of content, while the rest of the team is working on the next big thing. Uprising was a significant effort, and exponentially greater in content than any of the DLC you mentioned below.

 

-APOC

The original thread can be found here.

[Luk3us 63]

Uprising as free DLC? Yeah right, far to much time nad effort went into that little baby to just give it a away. Its not like Uprising was just part of the game that they "with held" and then released with a price tag later. Which so much "release day" DLC is. *Stares at Bioware*

[recover 2]

You can really see that his boss have learned him the technical terms and all that.

 

While it is true that Valve has Steam, that is not the reason why they can push out free DLC packs which adds a lot of content to TF2.

The real answer is that they built TF2 to last. Valve is clearly dedicated to support TF2 for a long time, and plan on updating it for a long time, even with new free content. All of the new content is FREE. The reason why they can do this is because more people continue to buy the game. It is a win-win situation.

This is different from e.g. RA3. EA made the game and expected a return on their investment within X months. After these months any additional income is just a bonus.

 

One more thing, I remember reading that EA budgets their game to have support for X number of patches. After these patches, there won't be any more patches, even if a new bug is uncovered etc. We have clearly seen this to be true. I guess the reason for this is first and foremost money, but secondly that team members have moved on to other projects and no one has the effort it takes to bring them all together to fix the bug. This is most likely a consequence of the corporate structure of EA and the bureaucracy that comes with it.

Edited May 5, 2010 by recover

[PurpleGaga27 40]

I am afraid RA3 Uprising will remain as non-free DLC (aka digital download) until it hits retail in the C&C The Second Decade which is 5 years from now.

 

Patches btw aren't actual DLC. Patches are patches. Full larger-sized add-ons are add-ons. But mission maps, small add-ons, small modifications or sdk/map materials officially released by the gaming company can be officially considered as free DLC.

 

So far there's an increase of non-free DLCs for some recent games. Valve has the best free DLCs so far.

[Koen 2]

A patch with new maps could be considered free DLC. Like the last patch for C&C4. After all, the CoD MW2 stimulus package is just 8 new maps, right? And you have to pay for that...

[Guest Stevie_K]

I am afraid RA3 Uprising will remain as non-free DLC.

 

So what? I think Uprising featured much new content and therefor deserves to be called an expansion pack that you obviously have to pay for. Calling it a patch is unfair imo.

 

Alien vs Predator for an example, they start charging for maps before they even patch the game and fix those ridiculous bugs. That's something that really pisses me off!

[Silverthorn 0]

A patch with new maps could be considered free DLC. Like the last patch for C&C4. After all, the CoD MW2 stimulus package is just 8 new maps, right? And you have to pay for that...

 

Same case for Left 4 Dead 1 & 2's "Crash Course" & "The Passing" respectively. Each of these DLCs cost 560 points for the Xbox 360. Valve wanted it free too like the PC, but sadly, Microsoft's policy is in the way and Valve cannot stop them, business is business after all.

[Gben 20]

*sigh*

 

Why would anyone even *consider* uprising a free DLC?

Just because it doesn't have MP?

 

But nobody even plays MP!

(Apparently)

 

EALA games need more DLC - paid or free doesn't matter. We can quibble later about what should be free and what we would pay for... but I'm not opposed to paying smaller amounts for "episodic" updates for a RTS.

[Inferno 22]

*sigh*

 

Why would anyone even *consider* uprising a free DLC?

Just because it doesn't have MP?

 

But nobody even plays MP!

(Apparently)

 

EALA games need more DLC - paid or free doesn't matter. We can quibble later about what should be free and what we would pay for... but I'm not opposed to paying smaller amounts for "episodic" updates for a RTS.

Amen, brother.

[recover 2]

EA wants to be able to calculate the gain from every manhour spent working on a game. There are no such thing as a free lunch in their company.

They also heavily rely on marketing. And since a free DLC won't get any marketing, they can't convince anyone to buy the game. For the people who run EA, that does not compute. No money = no free DLC.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

I wouldn't refer to a patch as DLC. Sure it's "content" and you do download it, but patches are bug fixes and balance tweaks. Maybe they introduce a few minor things that didn't make the ship date, but otherwise they are purely utilitarian. To call them DLC would be to set a dangerous precedent IMO. DLC is a term that should only be used for bonus content. If it is applied to patches, then people, most importantly developers themselves, might start thinking of them as "extras" when really patches are a critical aspect to keeping your userbase happy and loyal. We've seen firsthand what happens when patches stop coming and bugs still exist.

 

 

Also the people who say Uprising should have been free DLC are ridiculous.

[Gben 20]

Absolutely Bob.

 

To be clear, a patch is released to fix unforeseen problems in the release/retail version... security vulnerabilities, bugs, performance, usability and so forth and of course balance refinements to game play itself. The DLC is adding additional material not in the original retail version.

 

The tricky question is what DLC would you pay for?

I can't see myself paying for maps only.

Skins? Bah.

Weapons and vehicles are not so simple.

Case in point... Renegade patch 1.037. Is that a DLC or a patch?

Would you pay for the privilege of flying???

 

You can argue to the cows come home that flying was part of the original game design and should be a freebie... but the smear on developers reputation is that they would and do with hold features for just such a paid DLC opportunity. This is the stark future we are facing!

 

So again... we can quibble about what content should/might be paid for or free, but I would welcome the opportunity for an annual DLC of extra gameplay, mini-campaigns, new units and assortment of maps.

 

 

EDIT: When I say unforeseen I'm being intentionally generous and thinking the best!

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Well, the thing about 1.037 though is that it was mandatory for online play (as in a patch), not something that some players might have and others wouldn't, which is what most DLC is.

 

I probably would not pay for new maps, and definitely not for new unit skins. To be honest, I wouldn't pay for a lot of things. I'd just live without them. I don't like microtransaction systems in the slightest.