Bethesda and Namco Partner to Distribute Fallout:New Vegas

[Sander]

How do you know what they affect as a publisher? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't developers only work on the actual game within preset guidelines? Don't publishers control everything that has to do with selling the game, including what's on the disc and what's sold separately?

If they decide that it's more profitable to sell it as a series of DLC, developers are not deciding shit, are they? Again, I may be wrong here but this is my understanding of their relationship.

This would be true if Namco was the actual publisher of the game. Obviously, Bethesda is the one calling the shots here.

Yes, actually there is a difference. If I paid $60 for a disc, I have bought its' contents. I should not have to pay for it twice.
How would you like it if you bought a DVD and you could not watch a few scenes unless you paid extra money?

I wouldn't mind that one bit if they never advertised I'd get content I didn't.

Look, yet again, *this is all in your mind*. There is no practical difference, here. You are getting exactly all the content that is on the disc, and if you can write a program that can extract the content that cannot be played in the game then you can access that too. It's not like they're magically telling your PC not to read the bits that are on the disc.

I mean really, how is a release-day DLC where you download all the content different from one where the content doesn't need to be downloaded, other than how you feel about it?

Also, unless they spend extra time and resources on that extra content, I should not be charged for it. If it's on the disc, they obviously didn't do that.

Didn't they, really? The effort they spent on that part of the game is non-existent, because according to your feelings it falls within the original production cycle? Nonsense. Companies are free to decide when they spend how much effort on what part of their product. They also constantly cut things from games that have already been partially completed.

Would you rather that the cut content never ever appears again, or that you have the option of picking it up?

Agreed, hella quote btw. It seems like what a lot of newbs are missing here is DLC used to be free, just like patches.

So, did you just erase the existence of expansion packs from your memory or are you pretending they don't exist on purpose?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Didn't they, really? The effort they spent on that part of the game is non-existent, because according to your feelings it falls within the original production cycle? Nonsense. Companies are free to decide when they spend how much effort on what part of their product. They also constantly cut things from games that have already been partially completed.

Would you rather that the cut content never ever appears again, or that you have the option of picking it up?

It depends on why the content was cut. Editing is a very powerful tool that is extremely important for maximizing the quality of the final product. But again, if the content is on the disc then it means that it was developed and finished during the normal production cycle (which is why it made it on the disc when it went gold) and that the company is charging you extra for it for reasons other than the additional cost to make that content. Again, the point is that it's a slippery slope to selling games piecemeal (specifically with sidequests in RPGs).

It's a trend that's bad for the consumer, the question is whether or not the consumer will even notice. If they do, it's bad for publishers, if they don't then it's great for publishers. It's not like I think that publishers making money is bad, it's what enables them to make more and better games after all, I just have issues with price gouging and other abuses to customers and their wallets.

That said, you are right that DLC that is not on the disc isn't necessarily made after the normal production cycle. So I get what you're getting at, and I would say that it's shit either way. It's just unquestionable that content on the disc was made during the normal production cycle and the point is that it's shitty to sell content developed during that process as DLC.

Agreed, hella quote btw. It seems like what a lot of newbs are missing here is DLC used to be free, just like patches.

So, did you just erase the existence of expansion packs from your memory or are you pretending they don't exist on purpose?

Right, one of the underlying problems is that DLC charges far more for post game content than expansion packs do.

 

[Sander]

It depends on why the content was cut. Editing is a very powerful tool that is extremely important for maximizing the quality of the final product. But again, if the content is on the disc then it means that it was developed and finished during the normal production cycle (which is why it made it on the disc when it went gold) and that the company is charging you extra for it for reasons other than the additional cost to make that content. Again, the point is that it's a slippery slope to selling games piecemeal (specifically with sidequests in RPGs).

It's a trend that's bad for the consumer, the question is whether or not the consumer will even notice. If they do, it's bad for publishers, if they don't then it's great for publishers. It's not like I think that publishers making money is bad, it's what enables them to make more and better games after all, I just have issues with price gouging and other abuses to customers and their wallets.

That said, you are right that DLC that is not on the disc isn't necessarily made after the normal production cycle. So I get what you're getting at, and I would say that it's shit either way. It's just unquestionable that content on the disc was made during the normal production cycle and the point is that it's shitty to sell content developed during that process as DLC.

So, you're arguing that companies are only allowed to charge money for things that cost them extra?

If so, you should brush up on how businesses work. In all markets.

Right, one of the underlying problems is that DLC charges far more for post game content than expansion packs do.

I don't think they do. Expansion packs generally (but definitely not always) offered more, but they were also significantly more expensive than DLCs are now.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

So, you're arguing that companies are only allowed to charge money for things that cost them extra?

If so, you should brush up on how businesses work. In all markets.

No, I'm suggesting that, based on the normal market pricing, they are charging more for content developed under the same conditions, during the same time, within the same price range, and with the same market share.

I don't think they do. Expansion packs generally (but definitely not always) offered more, but they were also significantly more expensive than DLCs are now.

Price for content? Brood Wars was $30 on release for the same amount of campaign as in the first game with a few additions to the gameplay and aesthetics. Operation Anchorage is $10 for a fraction of the gameplay of Fallout 3 (something like 5 hours compared to the 60-80 hours of Fallout 3), added some new aesthetics and a small amount of new content. Most expansions added 50-100% of the amount of game available in the original game for $30 on release (so priced at $5 for the content to $20 less, but development is much faster and cheaper of such content). If they are going to increase the price of games, I expect a better experience and/or an explanation of the price hike, they have offered neither.

 

[Sander]

No, I'm suggesting that, based on the normal market pricing, they are charging more for content developed under the same conditions, during the same time, within the same price range, and with the same market share.

Prices aren't defined by production costs, but by what a market wants to pay for it. This has always been the case. The moral outrage at this stuff makes no sense.

Just look at any other business, and you'll something similar. Coffee houses charge extra for chocolate sprinkles or cappuccino, where the production costs are pretty much equal. Car manufactures charge extra for options that don't cost them anywhere near that amount of money to develop.

And the best analogy: DVDs. New editions charge more money while adding content that had long since been produced, just not made available yet. I don't see people raging about that, only people happy to see additional content.

Price for content? Brood Wars was $30 on release for the same amount of campaign as in the first game with a few additions to the gameplay and aesthetics. Operation Anchorage is $10 for a fraction of the gameplay of Fallout 3 (something like 5 hours compared to the 60-80 hours of Fallout 3), added some new aesthetics and a small amount of new content. Most expansions added 50-100% of the amount of game available in the original game for $30 on release (so priced at $5 for the content to $20 less, but development is much faster and cheaper of such content). If they are going to increase the price of games, I expect a better experience and/or an explanation of the price hike, they have offered neither.

Most expansions didn't offer anywhere near that amount of content, only the best ones (ie the ones you actually remember) did.

 

[maximaz]

This would be true if Namco was the actual publisher of the game. Obviously, Bethesda is the one calling the shots here.

I never said that Namco would be calling the shots but you are automatically assuming that they will not have any say and that would just be unusual. If they are partnering for distribution, then obviously Namco will have input. They stated they would be working closely with Bethesda already.

Like I said, Bethesda doesn't have the best track record with DLC already. Having someone like Namco partner with them is no good.

I wouldn't mind that one bit if they never advertised I'd get content I didn't.

If you purchase a DVD, do you need to be specifically told that you're buying everything that's on it? If you buy a movie, isn't it implied that you should get all the scenes that are included on the DVD? How often do you see an add describing what scenes you would or wouldn't see?

You are getting exactly all the content that is on the disc, and if you can write a program that can extract the content that cannot be played in the game then you can access that too. It's not like they're magically telling your PC not to read the bits that are on the disc.

You're kidding right? If I have to write a program to access that content then I am NOT getting it.

I mean really, how is a release-day DLC where you download all the content different from one where the content doesn't need to be downloaded, other than how you feel about it?

...Companies are free to decide when they spend how much effort on what part of their product. They also constantly cut things from games that have already been partially completed. Would you rather that the cut content never ever appears again, or that you have the option of picking it up?

I don't think you understood what I have a problem with exactly. I am complaining about content being cut from the game for the sole purpose of selling it separately, I don't care if I download it or when they make it. It's just that unlocked/release-day DLC's are most likely just content plucked from the game and sold back to me.

Partially completed extra content is removed for different reasons and I have no problems with it. There will always be such content and I don't mind if they release that separately or release an extended cut of the game with that content, like they do with DVD's nowadays. However, when they decide to cut finished content just to sell it separately, well that's bullshit.

DLC's absence should not be felt in the original game. That is not the case in something like Namco's Katamari. They basically sold half a game for $60, (didn't even complete the story) and require you to buy the rest separately. That's what I have a huge problem with.

There is also the pricing. You often end up paying 10 bucks for half an hour of gamplay, if that.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Prices aren't defined by production costs, but by what a market wants to pay for it. This has always been the case. The moral outrage at this stuff makes no sense.

I understand that but customer price expectations and the price of competing products are relevant factors, particularly for your current/old customer base. New customers usually don't know any better and many old customers with issues will still probably buy the basic product if the price on it hasn't been changed.

 

[Sander]

I never said that Namco would be calling the shots but you are automatically assuming that they will not have any say and that would just be unusual. If they are partnering for distribution, then obviously Namco will have input. They stated they would be working closely with Bethesda already.

Like I said, Bethesda doesn't have the best track record with DLC already. Having someone like Namco partner with them is no good.

Look, Namco is being used to distribute the game to certain markets. That's it. They're not there for the development of the game, so they're not going to impact that. At all.

If you purchase a DVD, do you need to be specifically told that you're buying everything that's on it? If you buy a movie, isn't it implied that you should get all the scenes that are included on the DVD? How often do you see an add describing what scenes you would or wouldn't see?

How, exactly, would I be aware that I was missing stuff that was actually on the disc?

Again, this shows why this is purely a mental problem and not an actual problem: you feel like you're being slighted, but when you look at the actual facts, it makes no sense.

You're kidding right? If I have to write a program to access that content then I am NOT getting it.

No, I am not kidding. This is not how content works. The way you think it works, you'd get access to the source code of programs, or the actual model data of art assets. You don't. You get a program that interprets the data on the disc when you buy a game. To get to the music, models, art, code or whatever else you may want separately, you need to go through a significant amount of trouble.
If you are not satisfied with the DLC you are talking about (data on the disc, but inaccessible with the programs on the disc) because of some moral principle, then you should have a problem with the entire idea of providing people with data without the source, and hence the entire idea of the current way of providing people with data.

Yet that's not what you're complaining about. You're completely fine with only accessing the data through the game you receive.

I don't think you understood what I have a problem with exactly. I am complaining about content being cut from the game for the sole purpose of selling it separately, I don't care if I download it or when they make it. It's just that unlocked/release-day DLC's are most likely just content plucked from the game and sold back to me.

'Most likely'
The fact that you have to interpret a developer's meaning to justify your own outrage should signify that the product itself does not constitute a problem for you, only the perceived intent.

Yet again: this is a mental problem you have. It has nothing to do with the quality of whatever product you are talking about.

How can you honestly tell the difference between content that was supposed to be in the game and content that wasn't? Are you reading people's minds?
Again: would you really feel better if the DLCs were released 2 months later rather than immediately? And if so, how does that make sense?

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

How can you honestly tell the difference between content that was supposed to be in the game and content that wasn't?

Alternate outfits in fighting games like Street Fighter 4, for example. Little work, a staple in this kind of games, already on the disc and yet you have to pay for them.

 

[maximaz]

Look, Namco is being used to distribute the game to certain markets. That's it. They're not there for the development of the game, so they're not going to impact that. At all.

I'm not saying that's wrong. However, unless you have more information than what's reported here, you are making assumptions to come up with that conclusion, no matter how many times you repeat it. The news says that they partnered with Namco to distribute the game in various regions. It's more likely than not that a co-distributor has input into decisions that developers/publishers normally make. Form of distribution usually falls under such decisions (which doesn't require them to be involved in the actual development of the game, as has been established).

If someone officially stated that Namco will just be printing posters then please share.

How, exactly, would I be aware that I was missing stuff that was actually on the disc?

Again, this shows why this is purely a mental problem and not an actual problem: you feel like you're being slighted, but when you look at the actual facts, it makes no sense.

If stuff was removed from the finished product to be sold separately, you'd most likely know. You would know if there were half a movie on the disc (the case with Katamari). You would also know if the Fight Club came up with a popup asking for money in order to see what happens to Bob (Draron Age DLC situation). You would also know if the movie was 30 minutes long or made no sense due to missing scenes (probably a bunch of games besides Katamari).

No, I am not kidding. This is not how content works. The way you think it works, you'd get access to the source code of programs, or the actual model data of art assets. You don't. You get a program that interprets the data on the disc when you buy a game. To get to the music, models, art, code or whatever else you may want separately, you need to go through a significant amount of trouble.
If you are not satisfied with the DLC you are talking about (data on the disc, but inaccessible with the programs on the disc) because of some moral principle, then you should have a problem with the entire idea of providing people with data without the source, and hence the entire idea of the current way of providing people with data.

Do you really not see the difference? You are comparing elements of a product to a finished and manufactured portion of it. I don't know about you but I don't expect to be able to easily extract and use music from a movie, I also don't expect to be able to use paint from a car I buy. I expect to use all those elements as advertised to me though, like actually hearing the music in the movie and the paint being on the actual car.

However, I also expect to be able to use the stereo that's in the said car. If the stereo is disabled and I need to go to great lengths to use it, then I didn't get it and I shouldn't be paying full price for the car.

The fact that you have to interpret a developer's meaning to justify your own outrage should signify that the product itself does not constitute a problem for you, only the perceived intent.

Yet again: this is a mental problem you have. It has nothing to do with the quality of whatever product you are talking about.

I've already given some examples in my previous post and in this one. You can often know with certainty that the content has been taken out of the finished game. Not surprisingly, that is usually the case with most day-one/unlocked DLC.

Again: would you really feel better if the DLCs were released 2 months later rather than immediately? And if so, how does that make sense?

I am complaining about content being cut from the game for the sole purpose of selling it separately, I don't care if I download it or when they make it.

 

[Sander]

Do you really not see the difference? You are comparing elements of a product to a finished and manufactured portion of it. I don't know about you but I don't expect to be able to easily extract and use music from a movie, I also don't expect to be able to use paint from a car I buy. I expect to use all those elements as advertised to me though, like actually hearing the music in the movie and the paint being on the actual car.

However, I also expect to be able to use the stereo that's in the said car. If the stereo is disabled and I need to go to great lengths to use it, then I didn't get it and I shouldn't be paying full price for the car.

Only if the product you bought was advertised as containing that content. And yet again, that's not what happens.

 

[draeke]

All due respect; I think you missed my point. All of this "half-done" content was usually either supposed to be originally included in the release or semi-finished at some point and left out for whatever reason by the devs. Then, WHEN AND IF the game were considered a success, the devs might consider (what is now DLC) more content "to be released later," used to be free and inclusive of a game just like patches were. It's kind of a testament really to devs wanting to add to the gaming experience and publishers trying to cash in on popularity. So, the argument that publishers have no control/ influence I think is muddled

I didn't mean to quote anything, just reply

 

[el_jefe_of_ny]

Has anyone noticed yet the non-mention of the US of Fuckin A?

Yes, we here supply the insane majority of cash for these companies. So, from my need of reading glasses or from the possible error in the press release, I see this as namco = rest of world, US of Fuckin A as bethesda.

The rest of the english speakers are in England, our once province we casted off as cold an unsightly. They too arent done via Namco. It appears to be a small % that is done.

France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Benelux, Nordic, Australia and New-Zealand

Really represent a small % of the population. I think this is a language thing and maybe a Ratings thing? Aussies have a retarded government/communist non violence thing

P.S.: Where the hell is Benelux??? Sounds like an appliance.

 

[Sander]

All due respect; I think you missed my point. All of this "half-done" content was usually either supposed to be originally included in the release or semi-finished at some point and left out for whatever reason by the devs. Then, WHEN AND IF the game were considered a success, the devs might consider (what is now DLC) more content "to be released later," used to be free and inclusive of a game just like patches were. It's kind of a testament really to devs wanting to add to the gaming experience and publishers trying to cash in on popularity. So, the argument that publishers have no control/ influence I think is muddled

I didn't mean to quote anything, just reply

No, I get that point. However, as I've said before, the distinction between 'was supposed to be included' and 'was not supposed to be included' is largely fictional in nature.

And if the removal of game parts does vastly reduce the quality of a game, then you don't buy it, do you?

P.S.: Where the hell is Benelux??? Sounds like an appliance.

Google not working for you?
Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg.

Yes, we here supply the insane majority of cash for these companies.

The foreign market is very important for these companies, and the US does not account for the 'insane majority' of sales.

 

[draeke]

All due respect; I think you missed my point. All of this "half-done" content was usually either supposed to be originally included in the release or semi-finished at some point and left out for whatever reason by the devs. Then, WHEN AND IF the game were considered a success, the devs might consider (what is now DLC) more content "to be released later," used to be free and inclusive of a game just like patches were. It's kind of a testament really to devs wanting to add to the gaming experience and publishers trying to cash in on popularity. So, the argument that publishers have no control/ influence I think is muddled

I didn't mean to quote anything, just reply

No, I get that point. However, as I've said before, the distinction between 'was supposed to be included' and 'was not supposed to be included' is largely fictional in nature.

And if the removal of game parts does vastly reduce the quality of a game, then you don't buy it, do you?

P.S.: Where the hell is Benelux??? Sounds like an appliance.

Google not working for you?
Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg.

Yes, we here supply the insane majority of cash for these companies.

The foreign market is very important for these companies, and the US does not account for the 'insane majority' of sales.

Yes, but unfortunately it's Fallout, one of my few loves and have to buy it and experience and I know a lot of you did as well regardless. We wait a friggin' decade and have to see what was done to our bought-out and sold-out franchise. I am clearly not happy with the 'finished' FO3 product, so that speaks for itself.