Sean Brennan on Fallout 3 DLC

[Brother None]

Bethesda Europe's Sean Brennan answers questions gamesindustry.biz has concerning the Fallout 3 DLC and sales model (first part of the interview with more general thoughts here).<blockquote>Q: You recently had more issues with the release of Broken Steel on Xbox 360 and PC – is it still a learning process, is it still early days for DLC as a service in general?

Sean Brennan: Can I say, rather delicately, we're in the seminal stages of the market for both first-parties and third-parties.

Q: Is there an issue with QA and testing internally at Bethesda?

Sean Brennan: I don't think so. It's something where we're producing a lot of content and we're working in partnership with Microsoft on this, we've produced a lot of content in a short time frame. Think of it like this – we're releasing a lot in terms of gameplay, it's about half a full-price game with 4-5 hours worth of gameplay, when there's only eight hours in some full-price titles. That process, for us and for Microsoft, it's inevitable in a sense that there's going to be some issues there. Obviously it has been a concern but I think we've ironed all of that out now. We're in a good position now, but it's not been how we wanted it. </blockquote>Seriously?

Spotted on GameBanshee.

 

[fedaykin]

Lots of content in a short time frame means lots of bugs. So it's not that they have a QA and testing issue. It's just their MO.

 

[Trithne]

Half-full price and 4~5 hours content is not value for money. 8h is not value for money on a full-price game. These aren't movies you're making boys, do a decent job.

 

[endaround]

Please explain how DLC is oh so different from expansion packs. Thanks.

Sometimes lack of money can lead to bad QA (Troika) but Bethesda is rolling in money, they just don't care. Blizzard wouldn't even do a beta test on something as buggy as Bethesda's final releases.

 

[lugaru]

Please explain how DLC is oh so different from expansion packs. Thanks.

Expansion packs come with the notion of a set price ($20-$30) and a certain minimum amount of content to justify putting that thing on a cd and shipping it out.

DLC ideally has no rules and the only costs involved are internal, since you don’t have to package and sell it until there is enough demand for putting a bunch of these things on a CD.

Honestly the idea of DLC thrills me, to think that developers have freedom to build whatever they want and put it out there electronically and as a consumer I will choose if I want it or not.

Even more so I love the idea of games like Battlefield Heroes coming out for free but making its money from people who want specific outfits or bonuses to how fast they accrue xp.

As for Beth specifically I wish they put more work into testing the stuff and they dropped Microsoft entirely but otherwise they have done an at least adequate job.

 

[Ausir]

Anyone think the M-rated Wii title they're going to announce might be Fallout-related?

 

[SuAside]

Can I say, rather delicately, we're in the seminal stages of the market for both first-parties and third-parties.

seminal stages? haha, wow. with the quality they've been giving in their DLCs, i'd say they're not even at that stage yet.

very mature software development cycle... awesome QA... extremely competent management...

 

[warsaw]

Anyone think the M-rated Wii title they're going to announce might be Fallout-related?

When and where was this mentioned?

 

[WraithUV]

IMO, if Bethesda could make any bigger mistakes than they already had, it was getting in bed with the evil empire (Microsoft) and this ridiculous X-based system.

This Games for Windows live thing is utter garbage, and causes *Far* more problems than it's worth. At least to date, and I don't really expect that to change anytime soon, and even then it probably won't change for the better.

The fact that I have to hold a subscription to, and log into a service I absolutely do *not* want any part of just to use content I legally purchased is absurd... And that's when it actually even works as intended.

Good thing I'm pretty computer savvy, and figured out how to disable all that crap. At least now I *can* play the game without all that garbage (or the crashes it likes to cause) on the rare occasion I actually feel like loading it up.


Now don't get me wrong.. the concept itself of DLC, I'm not against. Just do it in a way that leaves a little choice in the lap of the customer, doesn't invade my system with useless and buggy software I'm essentially *forced* to use, and for the love of all things holy (or unholy), let's *PLEASE* get back to the business model where it was far more important to put as much quality in *before* you send it out the door, rather than today's model of "Eh.. rush it out early.. they'll like that. If it doesn't work, we'll just sell them expansions until we finally (maybe) fix it."

Yeah... gimme the days of small, independent developers with FRESH ideas and the balls to try something new over this crap where the corporate giants just keep shoveling re-skinned versions of the same games at us over and over.. and most of 'em barely even work anyway.

And no.. Selling the DLC for "half price" does *not* IMO excuse them from the responsibility of making it worth buying in the first place. That's sort of like telling a hungry person you'll sell him half a pizza for half the price, only for him to find out the thing has gone rotten once he opens the box.

Shenanigans, says I!

-Wraith

 

[Brother None]

Anyone think the M-rated Wii title they're going to announce might be Fallout-related?

Possibly, sure. Why not? Just another console port.

When and where was this mentioned?

Here. Haven't newsposted it since we don't really know what title it is.

 

[Morbus]

Honestly the idea of DLC thrills me, to think that developers have freedom to build whatever they want and put it out there electronically and as a consumer I will choose if I want it or not.

Except you are forgetting two things.

First, developers don't build what they want, they build what the publisher wants, which leads to less creative freedom. Developers that ARE the publisher are even more screwed because they didn't even have the creative freedom in the basic game to begin with.

Second, DLC sucks because it's paid, as opposed to normal old-school download. Look at Blizzard and tell me they don't have the creative freedom to put whatever they want into the game because they don't have DLCs on the PC. Well, you have expansion packs in the patches, basically. Not really, but almost.

 

[lugaru]

Honestly the idea of DLC thrills me, to think that developers have freedom to build whatever they want and put it out there electronically and as a consumer I will choose if I want it or not.

Except you are forgetting two things.

First, developers don't build what they want, they build what the publisher wants, which leads to less creative freedom. Developers that ARE the publisher are even more screwed because they didn't even have the creative freedom in the basic game to begin with.

Second, DLC sucks because it's paid, as opposed to normal old-school download. Look at Blizzard and tell me they don't have the creative freedom to put whatever they want into the game because they don't have DLCs on the PC. Well, you have expansion packs in the patches, basically. Not really, but almost.

I would say it sucks when it is paid as opposed to because it is paid, a lot of games provide free downloads that expand and keep the interest going. Now I agree that an attitude is starting to gel of "dont give away for free what you can charge for" but honestly people will just pay for what they consider worthwhile and in the meantime games like LF4 will push the envelope of what players can expect for free after the game comes out. So yeah, some people will pay $1 for a song or a custom paint job on a car, some will refuse to pick up anything that is not free, but it is nice to see them experiment.

See also DLC as a means to make sure people are not pirating the game... if you have a registered game you can download extra stuff (Sims 2 had a lot of this stuff).

I think my main belief is that companies spend TONS of money to develop engines and art for games and then toss all that in the trash when it is time to move on, but DLC should hopefully provide them more revenue and us more enjoyment between new projects. And if they screw it up, people will either not purchase it or outright pirate it, so some market forces are at work.

I would like to think that DLC allows more freedom for the developer team than something that goes on the disk, but on that subject I just dont know, maybe the publisher scrutinizes that too.

 

[Morbus]

See also DLC as a means to make sure people are not pirating the game... if you have a registered game you can download extra stuff (Sims 2 had a lot of this stuff).

I don't know of one case where DLCs weren't pirated more easily than the game itself.

Not a single one. Even if I don't usually keep track of those things.

I would like to think that DLC allows more freedom for the developer team than something that goes on the disk, but on that subject I just dont know, maybe the publisher scrutinizes that too.

It's basically the same thing, only it's released in smaller packages, which may or may not be a good thing.

 

[AskWazzup]

I think my main belief is that companies spend TONS of money to develop engines and art for games and then toss all that in the trash when it is time to move on, but DLC should hopefully provide them more revenue and us more enjoyment between new projects. And if they screw it up, people will either not purchase it or outright pirate it, so some market forces are at work.

As if these big publishing companies don't get enough revenue from their overhyped, shallow aaa titles..... The more money they will get with these DLC'S, the further they will lean towards milking their products dry. This is pretty bad for potentialy good games, that will be screwed after an abundant number of canon raping additions. And furthermore, why even create 20-40 hour games where you have to invest large ammounts of money, with income only coming in a few years, when you can cheaply create additional content every other month, for an unreasonable price. If DLC will continue on becoming popular, this will be the mindeset of every publishing company, and thus games will become shorter and shorter, while your purse will parallely become more empty.

 

[Crni Vuk]

That process, for us and for Microsoft, it's inevitable in a sense that there's going to be some issues there.

Yeah letz play out that joker again that games always have bugs regardles what you do, so its basicaly nonrelevant to even try it to change something.

 

[lugaru]

I think my main belief is that companies spend TONS of money to develop engines and art for games and then toss all that in the trash when it is time to move on, but DLC should hopefully provide them more revenue and us more enjoyment between new projects. And if they screw it up, people will either not purchase it or outright pirate it, so some market forces are at work.

As if these big publishing companies don't get enough revenue from their overhyped, shallow aaa titles..... The more money they will get with these DLC'S, the further they will lean towards milking their products dry. This is pretty bad for potentialy good games, that will be screwed after an abundant number of canon raping additions. And furthermore, why even create 20-40 hour games where you have to invest large ammounts of money, with income only coming in a few years, when you can cheaply create additional content every other month, for an unreasonable price. If DLC will continue on becoming popular, this will be the mindeset of every publishing company, and thus games will become shorter and shorter, while your purse will parallely become more empty.

I low how apocalyptic people tend to get when one brings up the idea that revenue keeps gaming studios from going under, be it revenue from adds, exclusive deals, box copies or DLC. It would be nice if every game was made by 2 guys in a garage and provided thousands of hours of content in a free boxed copy hand delivered to your doorstep, but that is simply not the way things work. And I see where you are extrapolating that DLC will be the thing that destroys the gaming industry (why not art or the human race while you are at it?) but I don’t see how putting out one more cheaply produced product made with new and in game assets is so bad. I loved the Sam and Max return, I enjoyed Zeno Clash (a few hours of weird fun, download for 15-20 bucks), and I don’t mind paying for miniature expansions that provide stuff I’m interested in for a small price.

If anything I fear that every game will be padded out to 20-40 bland hours when a cheap and cool experience like Portal or L4D feels like less of a rip-off than an rpg I’ll never finish because I don’t like killing the same rat 400 times. And don’t get me started on Canon, I’m a comics fan and it breaks my heart when people prefer mediocre stuff that caters to their fanboyism over experimental stuff that misrepresents their childhood memories. Hell, you cant even make a “my little ponies” movie without some 40 y/o uber nerd coming out from under some rock and saying that they are using the wrong shade of pink on the horses. But yeah, people on the internet like throwing around words like rape over stuff like this…

 

[syllogz]

I don't know of one case where DLCs weren't pirated more easily than the game itself.

Not a single one. Even if I don't usually keep track of those things.

Mass Effect's 'Bring Down the Sky'.
Nobody bothered to crack/hack it, so it wasn't pirated.
I think it wasn't just an easy 'copy the file into the Data folder' install, rather it came with a new executable.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well lugaru the issue is just that at least the DLCs provided by Bethesda do lack quality and content in relation with somewhat exaggerated prices. Any DLC they released so far had potentialy not more then between 2 or eventualy 3 ours of gameplay but for most of the time a price between 7 and 10 $ (if I remember it correctly), now I am not against download content in the first place but I do prefer full developed addons. I dont see how one can not have the feeling to bee ripped off from this DLCs particularly by considering the heavy bugs almost all of those DLCs have by Bethesda.

 

[Morbus]

I don't know of one case where DLCs weren't pirated more easily than the game itself.

Not a single one. Even if I don't usually keep track of those things.

Mass Effect's 'Bring Down the Sky'.
Nobody bothered to crack/hack it, so it wasn't pirated.
I think it wasn't just an easy 'copy the file into the Data folder' install, rather it came with a new executable.

Let's not discuss the issue anymore, as its borderline against the rules. Also, yes they did bother, and yes it was.

 

[lugaru]

well lugaru the issue is just that at least the DLCs provided by Bethesda do lack quality and content in relation with somewhat exaggerated prices. Any DLC they released so far had potentialy not more then between 2 or eventualy 3 ours of gameplay but for most of the time a price between 7 and 10 $ (if I remember it correctly), now I am not against download content in the first place but I do prefer full developed addons. I dont see how one can not have the feeling to bee ripped off from this DLCs particularly by considering the heavy bugs almost all of those DLCs have by Bethesda.

Now that is something I can hardly argue with... I had a good experience with the first two DLC (except for the disapearing axe) but the patch that heralded the third release has wreaked havoc on players who use elaborate mods, myself included. This could turn most people away from patching in the future, not to mention consuming future DLC. But I just hope that they improve or more importantly that other companys get right what Beth is still struggling with.