Remastering the FPS DLC model.

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

I’m a big shooter fan, but one thing that always drives me nuts is how DLC is handled in these games. Barring Halo 3, which required you to buy the DLC to play the major playlists, every other shooter I’ve come across handles DLC maps in the same way; they create a DLC-required playlist for the handful of DLC maps and shoehorn the DLC maps into the existing playlists without requiring it. I will never again buy DLC maps that follow this standard model.

What’s the problem?

1. The Dedicated DLC Playlist: These playlists hold only the DLC maps, which can be as few as three, which means there’s very little variety, players won’t play more than an hour or two before getting bored. These playlists also typically offer every gametype possible, which is also problematic; some players just don’t appreciate certain gamemodes, and some maps are terrible for certain modes. The nail in the coffin for the DLC Playlist is always player count, it’s always obscenely low.

2. DLC Shoehorned in Existing Playlists: It’s standard to do this, and isn’t a problem in itself. The problem with this is that DLC maps will never appear if even one player doesn’t own that DLC map pack. In a game with many more players, this problem amplifies. This creates an attitude of “Why buy DLC maps if I can’t play them in my favorite playlist?” which results in even less DLC saturation, making the maps virtually non-existent.

3. DLC Required for All Playlists: While this is clearly the opposite side of the coin, so rarely used as it is, it’s got problems of it’s own. Obviously this is going to limit your player base to those that can afford paying out for DLC when it drops, reducing your population every time. Halo 3 made this work because it was fanatically popular in an age of nearly zero competition, combined with frequent DLC price drops and sales. Unfortunately, the times have changed, competition is fierce, and player retention is at an all-time low. This really is an age of casual gaming, so this model just doesn’t work.

So where does this leave us? At an impasse between players and developers. Developers need the DLC revenue to survive these days because game development has become exponentially more expensive. However, players are getting less and less willing to part with their hard-earned money for so little return. How can we make this work?

Option 4. Reinvent the DLC Model

I believe that change is necessary to make DLC relevant again, and the start of this change is to stop punishing those that buy DLC. How are you punished for buying DLC? You never get to play it in a standard playlist unless everyone in the lobby has it, that’s how. It feels like a slap in the face. How do we correct this?

Simple: Let us play the DLC anyway. If 4 out of 5 people in a lobby have the DLC, there should be an 80% chance of the DLC map popping up anyway. This rewards the people that bought the DLC, instead of spitting in their faces.

“But then won’t people just be cheap and refuse to buy DLC because other players might have it, giving them a chance to play anyway?” Yes. This is true. But there’s an answer to that too: Make DLC more meaningful.

How? Go beyond the standard of “Just Three Maps” and offer more content for the purchaser. Aesthetic adjustments like customizable skins, name plates, and even in-game bonuses like additional one-use items have been popular incentives in the past; many people will pay out for even the slightest temporary edge over the competition. Get creative with it, offer more, make a product people want to buy.

If any game developers are reading this, thank you for your time and consideration. I hope to see the rift between us closed, for the betterment of all. Thank you.

If any forum goers agree, disagree, or have any ideas to add, please respond. The more posts we get here, the higher the chance a developer might notice.

2

It’s a brilliant concept no doubt, one problem, there’s no incentive for said parent company to execute it, initial sales are the companies main focus when it comes to DLC. There’s nothing to gain in their part by allowing players to use the maps without purchasing something. Then it boasts problems from other players, why does he get to play, when I paid 10 bucks? Sure you can pack in features that make the map packs more of a premium access than an exclusivity, but from a business standpoint, it would be a loss in sales.

The benefit, people will actually get to play on the maps they paid for.

3

Everything OP says about the DLC model is true.
H5 needs to shift a lot of units and xbones so hopefully it will come with a larger selection of maps at launch.

I think the maps should be free and regular updates with new maps should be undertaken to keep the MM population healthy.

Microtransactions / DLC should focus on spops episodes, skins, armour, firefight maps, nameplates and the like.

4

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

great news I have a Xbox Live 1 month card code and it worked! To get one yourself just go to [REDACTED]

5

Edited by Moderator - Please do not post spam.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

It is self-evident that, as I have posted (with poll), 343 need to fix this problem – and bringing back the DLC playlist would be one way to try and do that.

6

I do feel the problem was that most of the DLC didn’t feel meaningful.

7

The thing is, the current DLC model never really was an issue when the games were popular and well loved by the majority of fans. I remember the days when the Legendary Map Pack was being released for Halo 3, plenty of people were going as far to skip school to play it. Everybody loved Halo 3, and new maps for the game was something huge that would get people excited.

Now, after Reach and with Halo 4, the games don’t excite people as much as they should, arguably due to a decline in game design quality. If people don’t love the game, they will not feel compelled to spend any money on DLC.

That being said, I do love your idea for the DLC model. This way, people who bought the DLC are rewarded with a higher chance to play their maps, and they’re given a bunch of extra goodies in addition to them. All the other players get a sort of “sneak peek” at what they could be getting if they had bought the DLC, which may entice them to do so.

8

I still advocate that DLC should be free and make it mandatory. And all you nay-sayers, the Witcher series has huge expansions/DLC and it is all free. The game is close enough to a AAA title and the company does it as something nice for their community.

But since I know free DLC will never happen with Halo, this idea sounds really good. Especially with the more meaningful additions with the maps.

9

> I still advocate that DLC should be free and make it mandatory. And all you nay-sayers, the Witcher series has huge expansions/DLC and it is all free. The game is close enough to a AAA title and the company does it as something nice for their community.
>
> But since I know free DLC will never happen with Halo, this idea sounds really good. Especially with the more meaningful additions with the maps.

I don’t doubt that they could do that. If we look to Shadow Fall for the PS4, Guerrilla Games is releasing the base DLC maps for free so the player base would not be fractured.

10

While I don’t see any manufacturer implementing the OP’s solution (since in de-incentivizes the purchase of DLC, and may end up exactly where we are now if fewer people buy it), I think those who believe maps can never be made free are a bit too pessimistic.

The nickel-and-dime mentality is ubiquitous now. Pay for extra baggage on planes. Pay for air to fill up your tires at gas stations. Pay for bottled water when there used to be a drinking fountain right there. And I think that people are gradually becoming more frustrated with it - especially in certain industries.

EA isn’t doing so well over the past few years compared to other game manufacturers, and the most likely cause is the massive expansion in their pay-to-play model. There is a certain level of game (defined by the initial purchase price) at which fewer and fewer consumers are willing to continually dump $1 here and $0.50 there. They expect that the premium price demands full functionality throughout the life of the game. Madden fans certainly do, anyway.

Pay-to-play models may still work for AAA games in the specific cases where the purchaser feels that the initial functionality he bought was worth the purchase price, and the add-ons give additional functionality, but do not remove existing functionality if they are not purchased. DLC maps, however, remove functionality if they are not purchased but required, or are a terrible investment if they are purchased with no such requirement for others, as they inherently depend on others making the same purchase to be useful.

I think this model is destined to fail. Were a manufacturer to shift to first giving a complete game for the purchase price and then only adding functionality rather than removing it with DLC, it would become apparent that the market response would be more positive than the response to the current model. When the market responds more positively, by definition this means the total consumer base expands - increasing the numbers of those who purchase the game in the first place, as well as those who purchase the add-ons.

Unlike many AAA games, Halo has a variety of possibilities for add-ons that do not necessitate cutting the initial release content short or disabling functionality later because use of the add-ons does not depend on others making the same purchase. I’ve stated these before in more detail, but a short list:

  1. Enhanced forge module
  2. Enhanced game mode developer module
  3. Aesthetic items (perhaps including customization abilities)
  4. “Spartan Ops”-like expansion packs (but the campaign needs to be complete out-of-the-gate)
  5. Automatic conversion of film clips to .flv/.mp4/.wmv

. . . along with others. None of these affect base game play, but for each, there is a market. In some cases, a significant market. It is my belief that these could more than make up for the map pack based DLC revenue, as well as enhancing future revenues by setting the precedent that Halo is not a nickel-and-dime franchise.

But as long as we limit our imagination to map packs for ranked, there’s no reason for Microsoft to look anywhere else, either.

11

I still think Halo should use the Gears of War 3’s approach to releasing maps. Where purchasing the map pack DLC will allow players a month or two of early access before the maps are released to everyone for free, but players that purchase the DLC will also get exclusive content, such as several cosmetics options. With Halo, the DLC could be focused on a Spartan Ops/Campaign expansion and the cosmetics, while the maps will be more as a bonus along with them.

12

I propose a ‘Trail period’ for players who haven’t bought the maps.

Here’s how it would work;

On the day of release, or whenever you boot up the game, you will be prompted to download an update. This update will be mandatory and will actually include the maps, even if you haven’t bought them.

Once you reach the game menus, you will be shown a message that says you will have access to the maps in Matchmaking, Forge and Custom Games for a period of 7 days. After that, they will become unavailable to you, unless you purchase them from the Marketplace.

During this time period, all players will have the maps installed, and so 343I can implement them fully in to all the playlists.
Many players who might not otherwise buy the maps, will this way get a chance to play them and quite possibly change their mind.

Once the trial is over, 343I would then make several playlists DLC required, lets say at a rate of 1 playlist per month, sounds fair to me.

After the trial period, if 343I wanted to, they could implement a system where once 80% of players have purchased the maps, the become usable for that game. This is possible because the maps are already installed on the console.

Other incentives could include extra goodies for early adopters who purchase the maps within the first two weeks, such as armour skins or a new helmet.

As for the map pack, I think 343I seriously blew their load with Halo 4.
Without boring you with stats, 343I gave us way to many maps in a way to short of a time period, compared to the like of Halo 3.
The short spacing between map packs mean players had to shell out more cash quickly, and didn’t have time to get to know the maps before the new ones where coming out. As a result, the maps became rather throwaway and worthless, I can’t even remember most of their names.

What they should do is give us (for what ever 800 points was in your country);

  • 3 brand new, never before played, maps
  • 1 remake of a classic (most of the work is already done)
  • 2 new armour sets
  • A bonus armour set for early buyers
  • 2 new weapon skins (if applies)
  • A few new emblem designs (how hard can it be to knock some up, really?)

Then space them out, like 4 months apart.
The first in January (kids got their x-mas monies), then the second in May and the third in September. With the extra spacing, players get to appreciate the maps they have before the next ones drop, and it won’t hurt the wallet as much either.

13

Due to a glitch in halo 4, i had to take multiple steps just to play on any dlc maps every time i restarted my xbox, (including forge island which was free) i had purchased the season pass, yet it took me forever just to get to play on the dlc maps. Even though i purchased the map packs, the game thought i didnt, and i didnt see it as worth it to take 30 minutes to get to play on the maps. Yet every now and then in standard playlists, a dlc map would be available to vote for. And if it won, i was kicked from the lobby. So this would work i think, if 4 out of 5 people in a lobby have a map pack, they have a chance to vote for it, if it wins, the person who doesnt is removed from the lobby.

14

well, my biggest issues with DLC, mostly Map-Packs is,
that there too much of them, with their price-perfomance ratio
& that i am too much dependent from others.
for example, even though i bought the champions bundle just
when it came out, i have never ever played on vertigo
or the pit, not even once. and because haven’t bought the
other map packs, i wasn’t able to play them even on a
dlc-only playlist. well, one could say, just buy the map packs then.
but 30 euros for 9 Maps is nothing i could afford &
to be honest wouldn’t even if a had the money.
thats the half-price of the full stand-alone game,
that’s way too much, in my opinion.
though i don’t like the Map-Pack-Model at all,
i would consider to change that opinion, if, for
example instead of 3 Map packs a 9 Maps, i would
rather buy one Map Pack consisting of 7 to 12 Maps.
in that way, at least nobody would have to fear
that one would not get the chance to play what one paid for.

15

> I still advocate that DLC should be free and make it mandatory.
>
> But since I know free DLC will never happen with Halo, this idea sounds really good. Especially with the more meaningful additions with the maps.

16

I much prefer to pay an extra $10-15 for the game and have all DLC content free.

But then this could make developers lazy, and they release minimal content because they have already got the cash.

Increasing the amount of maps to 5 or 6 could persuade people to purchase if it is the same price. You would have 2 small maps, 2 medium maps and 2 large maps. And a map from each size could be a evolved remake to reduce cost of development.

This would give all playlist an additional 4 maps. As 4v4 could use the small and Medium and 8v8 could use the medium and large.

Other incentives like weapons and armor skins should be included too.

17

i’ll say this much about DLC, it does get annoying realfastto find brand new playlists and so few maps, especially when a new pack is released, in a particular playlist whether old or new. Next comes my other annoyance, when the game types become too reptative, largly due to the voting system Halo 4 had because tons of people were constantly picking the same thing. For this reason, I propose we should have new options before entering matchmaking; Give us the option to selection the map and gametype we want to play, as well as whether to enter a lobby for the same map and game type or join an open game so we can mix and match before entering the matchmaking process, just not to go crazy and extend other choice options, leave it as simple as this. Any of these options can also include an “any” selection as sort of the quickmatch deal for those who simply don’t care what they play, don’t like waiting, etc. This could perhaps give the devs a more clear idea on the type of maps everyone likes, gametypes, etc, for future map packs.

18

>

Um, no.

This essentially amounts to On-Disk-DLC, and it would likely blow up in 343i’s and Microsoft’s faces. Plus, locking down content (however temporarily) and laying down DLC restrictions could very easily lead to more micro transactions and online subscription fees. This was the direction that EA charged down with their online multiplayer pass system, and they paid for it. People don’t want to look at a paywall every time they boot up their games. Doing these kinds of things only encourages companies to divide up their games more and more. When people pay $60 for a game, they should get 100% of that game, not 20% with the other 80% divided into DLC packs that are already on the disc.

People already pay for the system, the game, their Xbox Live service, and their internet service. If companies want to sell DLC after release, then they must make people feel as though it is worth the extra money.

19

This is less remastering and more “throwing up the hands in frustration as well as finally catching up to the times.” Selling cosmetic items isn’t new or remastering. Letting people play with content they didn’t pay for invalidates the reason to even buy it in the first place.

But I agree that the typical DLC model for shooters of selling map packs can’t continue. It can work for the “It” game because they got the population who will buy the maps and make the purchase meaningful. It won’t work for Halo. Not anymore. Map packs were pointless in Reach and pointless in H4.

20

> I propose a ‘Trail period’ for players who haven’t bought the maps.
>
> Here’s how it would work;
>
> On the day of release, or whenever you boot up the game, you will be prompted to download an update. This update will be mandatory and will actually include the maps, even if you haven’t bought them.
>
> Once you reach the game menus, you will be shown a message that says you will have access to the maps in Matchmaking, Forge and Custom Games for a period of 7 days. After that, they will become unavailable to you, unless you purchase them from the Marketplace.
>
> During this time period, all players will have the maps installed, and so 343I can implement them fully in to all the playlists.
> Many players who might not otherwise buy the maps, will this way get a chance to play them and quite possibly change their mind.
>
> Once the trial is over, 343I would then make several playlists DLC required, lets say at a rate of 1 playlist per month, sounds fair to me.
>
> After the trial period, if 343I wanted to, they could implement a system where once 80% of players have purchased the maps, the become usable for that game. This is possible because the maps are already installed on the console.
>
> Other incentives could include extra goodies for early adopters who purchase the maps within the first two weeks, such as armour skins or a new helmet.
>
> As for the map pack, I think 343I seriously blew their load with Halo 4.
> Without boring you with stats, 343I gave us way to many maps in a way to short of a time period, compared to the like of Halo 3.
> The short spacing between map packs mean players had to shell out more cash quickly, and didn’t have time to get to know the maps before the new ones where coming out. As a result, the maps became rather throwaway and worthless, I can’t even remember most of their names.
>
> What they should do is give us (for what ever 800 points was in your country);
> - 3 brand new, never before played, maps
> - 1 remake of a classic (most of the work is already done)
> - 2 new armour sets
> - A bonus armour set for early buyers
> - 2 new weapon skins (if applies)
> - A few new emblem designs (how hard can it be to knock some up, really?)
>
> Then space them out, like 4 months apart.
> The first in January (kids got their x-mas monies), then the second in May and the third in September. With the extra spacing, players get to appreciate the maps they have before the next ones drop, and it won’t hurt the wallet as much either.

This idea works for me, the only problem I have with it is the space taken up on the console. I only have 6 games for my xbox one and already hae taken up over 30% of its hard drive. If we end up getting an external drive then great that works for me, if not then what am I going to do when I can fit anymore on my HD