EA executive calls on-disc DLC complaints ‘nonsense,’ but the truth is more complex

By Joel Hruska

Ask a gamer what they think of downloadable content (DLC) these days, and you’re as likely to hear a torrent of blistering language as anything positive. The process of releasing content piecemeal over time has been extremely controversial in the gaming community. Publishers have embraced the concept despite the mixed reaction of gamers. It’s now common practice for AAA games to release several follow-up areas or adventures, and access to such is often sold as a “Season Pass.”

DLC, as often viewed by gamers

One of the most controversial aspects of DLC has been on-disc DLC that ships as part of the core game, but that players must pay a fee to unlock. Dragon Age: Origins was criticized for this when it launched in 2009 — as soon as you reached your camp, NPCs essentially attempted to sell you a DLC package from within the game itself. In a recent interview with GameSpot, EA executive Peter Moore declared that gamer hostility to DLC was “nonsense,” and caused by a fundamental misunderstanding of how game development works. When asked how EA reconciles the tension between gamers who generally dislike DLC and publishers that increasingly depend on it for revenue, Moore responded “Well a lot of that resistance comes from the erroneous belief that somehow companies will ship a game incomplete, and then try to sell you stuff they have already made and held back. Nonsense.”

That answer might seem dismissive, but there’s quite a bit of truth to it.

The reality of DLC

One reason gamers and game developers / publishers see the DLC issue so differently is because many gamers fundamentally don’t understand how game development actually works. This was neatly captured in a Gawker infographic when Mass Effect 3’s DLC strategy was under fire, but developers we’ve spoken to have indicated that the framework presented below applies to more studios than just EA.

How DLC works

In the first section, production of DLC is continuous and funded by sales of the earlier content. Because the game is generating revenue, the publisher is willing to invest the time and money to create post-DLC projects and continue supporting the title. Gamers tend to think that game development should look like the second graph, with all on-disc or day one DLC included in the core game. The third timeline is what actually happens under this model, and the developers we checked with verified that this is how the game industry fundamentally works. Game developers are often hired in huge numbers to finish a project and then laid off as soon as the game actually ships. The problem is acute enough that Kotaku has published multiple stories on how the game industry treats employees and the profound job insecurity they face as a result.

Under the “Ship all core content and develop DLC afterwards” model, most of the people who actually created the initial game are gone — either fired or moved to other projects. That means the secondary production team will be assembled either partly or wholly from new developers, who may or may not be familiar with the game world or the previous content. That’s not to say that other studios or new teams can’t produce excellent, thematically appropriate DLC, but it’s still an additional hurdle. If a game doesn’t sell extremely well, a publisher may not be willing to fund the additional expense of developing DLC from scratch after launch; running the projects simultaneously helps ensure that at least some additional content will be available. Seen from this context, DLC can help games and, by extension, gamers.

For every great DLC package that adds real value or advances the storyline, however, there’s a dozen cheap cash-ins. From horse armor to paying to unlock visible nipples in The Saboteur (an EA-published game), far too many game publishers have loaded titles with terrible DLC. EA included slightly faster weapons as a Dead Space DLC add-on, but players had to pay $5 to gain access to the faster-firing weapons. The concept of DLC is often tied to pre-orders, as many of the item packs or new skins that are available for purchase after the game is launched may be included for free if you order the title in advance.

Preorder bundles and “bonuses” have become crazy enough that Kotaku created a comprehensive chart to illustrate the problem. It’s based on Watch Dogs, a title Ubisoft published:

The pre-order matrix for Watch Dogs

If you wanted all of the available content released via pre-order, you had to buy four separate copies of the game. That’s crazy. It’s a blatant attempt to wring money out of gamers and increase the earnings potential of an utterly mediocre, forgettable game. Gamers have every reason to be pissed about this kind of crap, and this is where Moore’s explanation fundamentally misses the point. Yes, including Day 1 DLC on-disc is controversial, but it’s just one aspect of the problem.

Why do publishers keep using these methods? Because they work — and the money they bring in can make a huge difference in whether a game gets a sequel or not. A game that doesn’t sell enough copies to break even but does huge DLC business may turn a net loss into a significant profit, especially if the game has a core of dedicated fans who will play (and pay) for years. $60 price points became the norm with the introduction of the Xbox 360, but that price hasn’t been adjusted for inflation. The adjusted cost of a $60 game in 2005 should be $73 now.

Back in the SNES days, it wasn’t unheard of for games to cost $70-$80, and while lower prices have been a boon for consumers, they’ve put huge pressure on developers. Developing a AAA title now costs $20-$50 million, and that’s before the cost of marketing and promotion. It’s not unusual for the total cost of a title to break $100 million. That’s why, as Moore notes, the number of games EA is publishing per year has gone from 70 in 2007 to just 12 in 2015. When games cost hundreds of millions of dollars, even the largest companies can’t afford to publish very many. It’s also why we’ve seen a surge of indie developers these past few years. Studios aren’t willing to take risks the way they once were, and creating a small team around a simpler game design or strategy can significantly reduce development costs.

I think it’s fair to say that what angers and irritates gamers isn’t DLC as such, but the terrible quality of the product that often gets shoveled out to consumers. Studios that bear this in mind and release game updates that meaningfully improve the title or add to the story tend to be much better received than DLC that locks out playable characters or simply adds new costumes.