New 'Hitman' game dev: No DLC, microtransactions, passes

[Lagmonster]

I'm a huge Hitman fan despite the series' highs and lows, and I have to admit that the following news made me very happy. Not only is the new game supposed to be more like the series high Blood Money, but the developer has stated in interview that the game will cost $60, period, and that all content to be released later will be released free as part of that cost.

Given that they could easily have used the franchises' popularity to milk cash out of its fans, I'm kinda pleased that they think this way.

Most gaming sites are blocked for me right now, but a Google search for "Hitman no DLC" will turn up several news articles confirming the statement.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

While I can understand being pleased at the news, and certainly it can be very welcome news when you compare it to Typical EA DLC Practice, I'm not sure praising the no-DLC model is necessarily a good thing. Yes, the EA model is godawful and is rightly hated, but it gives DLC a bad rap.

Look at how (PC) games used to work, circa 1995 - 2005. You got the base game on CD. Usually, there was an expectation of several patches beyond the retail release, mostly bug-fixing and feature-polishing, but sometimes the better developers would add content (I remember Battlefield 1942 received quite a few new maps in its initial run of patches). Then if the game did well, it would get a non-standalone retail CD expansion for 50-75% of the original game's full price, sometimes later packaged together as a "gold edition." This in turn would get a patch or two, but usually only bug-fixing as most of the new features and content the developers wanted to add are included in the retail expansion. Bearing in mind that these are 2000 US dollars and not 2015 USD, the game would go for $40-50, with a $20-40 expansion (and maybe a second expansion for similar price in some cases). Later on, as games got more expensive and Satan big publishers started breathing down developers' necks, the patches got thinner and thinner. Compare the above BF1942 and BFVietnam to Battlefield 2, then to Bad Company, then to BF3 and 4. While BF3 and 4 are very much DLC-era games suffering under EA's DLC model, BadCo and BF2 predate modern digital-distribution DLC and you can see the degradation in post-release support. So I don't think one can reasonably blame DLC as the downfall of good post-release support, even if companies like EA do misuse it. The Xbox360 era, arguably the height of console gaming versus PC gaming (wherein console gaming was at its most ascendant relative to PCs) is likely more to blame than anything else, as companies were focused primarily on console releases and the different demands thereof, and only supported PC versions of the game as an afterthought.

Compare to what I call 'The Swedish Model' (ironic, perhaps, given that Battlefield is also made by a Swedish developer), so named because it's most saliently employed by the Swedish companies Overkill and Paradox, who develop Payday 2 and publish a whole host of games, respectively. In this model, you get the base game via digital distribution for about $40 USD - 2015 dollars, mind you, where games that cost $40 in 1999 would now cost $60 - and that's not including the now-quite-common Steam Sale (I bought Payday 2 for $10). Now, not only do you get lots of post-release patches just like in the Good Old Days, but it also comes with some degree of free content - provided you understand the context thereof, because that free content is reliant upon and released in tandem with paid DLC content. Now, you personally don't have to buy the attendant DLC, and you still get some of the content (i.e., it's free) - but it's important to remember that that content is free for you, Joe Vanilla Game Owner, because the "full" content of the paid DLC subsidizes the free content. It's essentially the best of both worlds: Penny-pinchers continue to get free updates to their original game purchase, while those who want more can buy mini-expansions (instead of one or two larger retail expansions) whenever it's convenient, all while the developers continue to receive income with which to further support and develop the game.

Paradox's Crusader King II came out in 2012. It is to this day still receiving major feature and content updates, 3 years later. That is an insane service life for a non-MMO video game, and you'd be hard pressed to find a comparable example in the 1995-2005 retail era. The reason CK2 is still receiving free, major updates is that portions (50% or so, give or take) of those updates are paid DLC content. The update that just came out a few weeks ago fleshes out the steppe areas of Asia, overhauls the Mongols and adds a ton of quality of life improvements to the game, all for free. If you want to play as the new Mongols, however, you need to pay for the DLC - which is an entirely fair proposition. It's new content, which is being partially provided for free just for owning the base game and nothing else, but you get more for buying the rest of the update - which of course funds the developers to continue doing this.

So can DLC be misused? Sure, and that makes announcements like "We won't have any DLC for our game!!!" seem all warm and fuzzy, but ultimately it strikes me as an extremely naive and reactionary business model, which in the long run will do more harm than good.

[TheFeniX]

Paradox's Crusader King II came out in 2012. It is to this day still receiving major feature and content updates, 3 years later. That is an insane service life for a non-MMO video game, and you'd be hard pressed to find a comparable example in the 1995-2005 retail era.

Starcraft.* valve games et all. Epic was keeping Unreal Tournament up to date until the release of 2k3, even adding new maps late in the game's lifecycle. Pretty sure id did the same with the Quake series.

*Thank God for B.net considering their update schedule. Kids don't remember the horror of hunting down Half-Life patches when valve didn't actually host them.

The big difference is these companies were smart to embrace the modding scene to allow users to create their own content. I bought Left 4 Dead 2 on PC years ago, only recently loaded it up again. Game is almost 6 years old now. How much will I have to pay for all those updates and additions made by valve and the community..... wait, all that shit is free? I can play No Mercy with new infected and the gameplay changes they bring? Oh wait, this is valve.

So can DLC be misused?

Probably 90% or more of DLC is bullshit cash grab stuff some kid could bang out on his mom's Dell in 30 minutes and sold for $.99 to $5. I consider that "misuse" of what DLC was supposed to be. If you don't, to each his own. To me, the better comment is "DLC is widely misused in the current market."

Sure, and that makes announcements like "We won't have any DLC for our game!!!" seem all warm and fuzzy, but ultimately it strikes me as an extremely naive and reactionary business model, which in the long run will do more harm than good.

Different companies can use different business strategies every once in a while. That's a good thing. TBH, I generally don't care, but it would be nice to pay $60 for a game and know that's it. I get everything for that game. It's not even about paying $4 or whatever here and there, it's about dealing with the bullshit of a transaction or having Payday motherfucking CONSTANTLY give me little red circles in my menu that say "THIS IS A DLC ITEM, BUY IT YOU ENTITLED PIECE OF SHIT!" And I actually quite like that game and their DLC system. The thing is, aside from the new missions, none of that DLC is all that enticing. It's just reskins and some new weapons with different stats. Why am I being bludgeoned with them?

The problem with the current system is "where is the content?" Reskins aren't content, but that's what a majority of DLC is these days. No one is asking for Dawnguard, Gat Out of Hell (Let's face it, that game is DLC), General Knoxx's Armory, or other actual expansion pack level content to be given away for free. But those types of DLCs are rare anyway. So, a developer coming out and saying "full game $60, we may not release anything new for it, but if we do it's yours" is pretty refreshing and can be a long-term investment in a community. Much like how Blizzard and valve have metric tons of goodwill to burn, like valve did to get Steam(ing pile of shit™) off the ground in the early 2000s or how Blizzard can merely announce Starcraft/Diablo X and their stock-price shoots through the roof.

[Thanas]

The worst DLC is the Creative Assembly way - feature strip from the main game only to sell it back to the suckers in slices.

[TheFeniX]

The worst DLC is the Creative Assembly way - feature strip from the main game only to sell it back to the suckers in slices.

I don't keep up with Grand Strategy, but are we talking about CK2? Steam has it for $40 (it's 3 years old) and it has over $200 worth the DLC.... in said 3 years. The only games I can think of I've played for 3 years that have that kind of money sink are subscription MMOs. I can't comment on the value on that kind of system because I would avoid it as a matter of course, even if I did play 4X games.

[Thanas]

What? CK2 is not creative assembly at all. Are we talking past each other?

[TheFeniX]

How the Hell did I think you were talking about Paradox when you said Creative Assembly? I might have blacked out looking at DLC pages for Total War and CK2 as it's a lot to take in. That's on me.

[Enigma]

The worst DLC is the Creative Assembly way - feature strip from the main game only to sell it back to the suckers in slices.

That is the same thing with The Sims series.