Wait, don't they need to get the retail game out the door first?
Gearbox's loot-driven wasteland romp Borderlands ain't even on store shelves till next week--with a PC release following on Steam the week after that--but the developer is already spilling the beans about its post-release plans for downloadable content.
Described as "the first in a series" of add-ons, The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned will run you $10 on all three platforms. Here's a brief description of what's in there.
Tasked with keeping the workers of Jakobs Cove alive, Dr. Ned (who is not related to Dr. Zed from Fyrestone) does his job a little too well, creating zombies and other abominations that now run rampant in this region. Players will have to work alongside Dr. Ned as they embark on a quest to cure the inhabitants of Jakobs Cove in this full-fledged expansion filled with new enemies, new quests and rare loot drops.
More importantly, here's what it looks like.
The real question, of course, is exactly how much content and how big a landmass this pack entails. Jeff's closing in on the level cap in Borderlands right next to me, so we'll have a full review of the shipping game next week, and you can look for this DLC pack to hit "later this year."
Some of you don't get it, a lot of side stuff gets cut from games during development. Sometimes because it's too ambitious. Sometimes because it's too ridiculous to fit into the story. Sometimes because of lack of time to the deadlines. This might be good for the industry if it doesn't keep pushing games back for the extra content. But it'll be bad for it if they keep charging us an arm and a leg for the DLC.
All I have to say is at least they haven't announced it being available on the day of the Borderlands release. For all we know this is not even done yet, so quit bitching and wait OR don't wait for it. And yeah, those zombies look incredible.
Phew! I just watched the preview and when Jeff said the second play thorough wasn't as much fun I was starting to wish I hadn't preordered the game (preordering is stupid but it was on special!!). Thank the gods there is going to be DLC, I just hope the game turns out to be as fantastic value as Fallout 3 was when it came to it's DLC. I totally got more gameplay out of that game than any game I have recently purchased.
To those people poo-pooing the announcement of DLC before the actual game is released: I get what you mean by thinking they should have just put it in the game in the first place, that's fair enough but I would rather know that this game is definitely going to have a little bit of DLC than none at all. Besides they are claiming this is a " full-fledged expansion filled with new enemies, new quests and rare loot drops.", so hope fully that'll mean an extra 3-4 hours of game play. I would quite happily spend the extra $10 (which with the way the Aussie dollar is going right now will probably be $9 by the time the DLC comes out) for a little more action assuming the main game is any good.
" Phew! I just watched the preview and when Jeff said the second play thorough wasn't as much fun I was starting to wish I hadn't preordered the game (preordering is stupid but it was on special!!). Thank the gods there is going to be DLC, I just hope the game turns out to be as fantastic value as Fallout 3 was when it came to it's DLC. I totally got more gameplay out of that game than any game I have recently purchased. To those people poo-pooing the announcement of DLC before the actual game is released: I get what you mean by thinking they should have just put it in the game in the first place, that's fair enough but I would rather know that this game is definitely going to have a little bit of DLC than none at all. Besides they are claiming this is a " full-fledged expansion filled with new enemies, new quests and rare loot drops.", so hope fully that'll mean an extra 3-4 hours of game play. I would quite happily spend the extra $10 (which with the way the Aussie dollar is going right now will probably be $9 by the time the DLC comes out) for a little more action assuming the main game is any good. "
Well, to be fair, Jeff and crew were only killing the wild animals... Those are never as interesting or threatening as a mob of trigger happy bandits.
" ehhh, I'm sorry, but this kind of DLC announcement is what I dislike. Something like this could've been put in the actual game, but instead they're trying to milk the consumer. Not saying the content is bad or anything, and heck, it would be ok even if it was announced after the game came out by a few months, but the game isn't even in stores yet. And yet they already got stuff in finished for this. It would sit well with me if they actually worked on it AFTER the game was released, not during the game's actual development. "
These types of comments are ridiculous. You, and the others who post similar things obviously know nothing of game development. Especially when it comes to consoles, there is a lengthy certification process. Think of all of your favorite games. Perhaps you like Halo 3. Every knew there would be DLC for that before it came out as Bungie did it with Halo 2. If they had waited to finish that DLC, the game would have come out TWO years later. TF2 would have been the same way..except it still wouldn't even be released because Valve was cranking away at that extra bit of content.
That is not how the game development world works. You have a strict budget when it comes to money, which has a direct effect on how long you have to ship the game. There comes a time where you are nearing the cap when it comes to spending, and you must ship the game. No matter what is done or isn't done. Sure, they announced this DLC before the game came out. That doesn't mean it is already completed. They could have spent a week working on those THREE screenshots and a name/story to go along with them. That doesn't mean anything at all.
Now, specifically to the person I am quoting with this post: If you don't want to spend the money on the content, feel free to 'boycott' it. Just be sure to post on every thread about the DLC saying how much you don't like it or think it doesn't add anything to the game even though you haven't played it. We enjoy that. Also, post a user review on both of these games saying how terrible they are. That's how it works right?
The outcry and boycotting crap is ridiculous. It's obvious from what's out there already that there's an above average amount of content on the game disc. Furthermore, the DLC doesn't seem like it will be available on release day but actually some time after which just means that they took 2-3 months to make it after they were done with the game. Showing it right now is perhaps in poor judgement on one hand, but it also shows an active commitment to development. Last, and most importantly, you don't need to buy DLC if you don't want it.
@animateria: Actually I was kind of glad to see more of the animals in the quicklook, I don't think I had seen those purple scorpion things before. Personally I think Gearbox over did showing bandits as I was starting to think that's all that would be in the game. Thats not the reason I was worried though, i was worried because Jeff said he wasn't enjoying the second play through as much. Which is why I think it's great that there is DLC comming, and "later this year" too :D
Developers should at least wait until AFTER the game is released before announcing any DLC's or expansions. Just makes it seem like they've purposely left something out of the game so they can squeeze more money out of us.
@gbrading: I second that, show no mercy just because the game looks great! Seems like a pretty stupid idea to do it like this, they could at least have waited a couple of moths to show it.
Seeing how I'm not already sold on Borderlands I'll pass. However if Gearbox proves that they are going to support Borderlands beyond its release date with significant and worthwhile content then I might feel more compelled to buy Borderlands.
Extremely poor judgment to wheel out DLC that (seemingly blatantly) upsets the ratio of content-to-time-from-release. If Gearbox is seriously putting out an expansion of any considerable substance within the very brief two months between the game's release and the end of the year like they claim they are, it's pretty apparent that the "planned DLC" is actually something that should have shipped with the game. I can't see this NOT being a PR crapstorm with this timetable. At best they'll realize everyone is thinking it should have been on the disc from the start and, wanting to avoid looking like money-grubbing dicks, make the content free - but people that don't use XBL or that don't have a hard drive are going to feel slighted. Burnout Paradise is an excellent example of a great game that gave you a ton of free updates and downloads, and then at an appropriate time came out with paid content, and people still playing it about a year and a half after release. At worst Gearbox embraces their inner douchenozzle, charges for the content, and everyone from all corners of the gaming world cries foul, with the exception of a few fanboys and people who work for companies on the receiving end of micro-transactions. The smart money would be to retract the statement with the classic "Oops! someone made a mistake, we meant blahblahblah" and announce the "real" timetable of about the 4-6 month mark. Would it be totally transparent, given the post-release plans they already put out with screenshots and price-plans and whatnot? Very, but it'd work.
DLC often makes people feel a little uncomfortable, because it's hard to tell when you're being scammed and when you're not -- and often the DLC they're giving you doesn't justify the price they're charging (and just because a developer claims they didn't start on it until it was too late for inclusion in the game doesn't mean it is). There are good points on all sides of DLC and the problem is that it's a new paradigm well beyond "expansion packs". Because it's still so new, developers are coming to terms with what's acceptable and what they can get away with on a "work to revenue" ratio while gamers are coming to terms (often through experience) on what is a rip-off and what isn't. There are clear abuses of DLC by developers and clear instances where the developers are doing right by us. Then there are those who are caught in the middle, because of the bad reputation the bad developer situations have given the whole thing. Over time, I think both sides will learn from enough experiences that a nice balance will be reached and we'll look forward to quality and quantity of content for a reasonable price in the future (to a point that more replicates actual expansion pack experiences) and these (often justified) fears of being ripped off will subside.
In the meantime, I have to say that the Quick Look and recent info I've seen on Borderlands has made me really lose interest in the title. The words "boring" and "uninspired" and "generic" have come to mind and mouth. This, however -- assuming they aren't merely concept art paintings -- looks pretty awesome and has increased my interest. It's far more interesting than the "shoot wolf dogs" stuff we've seen, so far and the colors and lighting look positively fresh, compared to the washed out blandness we saw earlier. Depending on the length and depth of this DLC, $10 actually sounds very reasonable, too. A lot of other people would have started it at $15 regardless of quality and content, so good on them for that, at least. Whatever you might say about the game itself, I do get the impression that "let's treat our customers well" is a big priority for them.
Still very doubtful about Borderlands, but keeping an ear firmly planted to the ground, just in case!
@Branthog: don't expect this to be any differant from the original game just because it's zombies now instead of skags. chances are if you don't like shooting "wolf dogs" as you put it, you will not enjoy shooting zombies.
personally i'm extremely hyped about this game and dlc. the setting, which i might add isn't actually meant to be post-apocalyptic (i remember you mentioning that in a previous post) but rather otherworldly, really speaks to me. also, skags and bandits are not the only enemies in the game.
" ehhh, I'm sorry, but this kind of DLC announcement is what I dislike. Something like this could've been put in the actual game, but instead they're trying to milk the consumer. Not saying the content is bad or anything, and heck, it would be ok even if it was announced after the game came out by a few months, but the game isn't even in stores yet. And yet they already got stuff in finished for this. It would sit well with me if they actually worked on it AFTER the game was released, not during the game's actual development. "
Have you seen anything about this game? It's not like it's lacking in content. If you object to it then don't buy it.
" @Branthog: don't expect this to be any differant from the original game just because it's zombies now instead of skags. chances are if you don't like shooting "wolf dogs" as you put it, you will not enjoy shooting zombies. personally i'm extremely hyped about this game and dlc. the setting, which i might add isn't actually meant to be post-apocalyptic (i remember you mentioning that in a previous post) but rather otherworldly, really speaks to me. also, skags and bandits are not the only enemies in the game. "
It all remains to be seen what the actual overall gameplay mechanic is (which is astonishingly still kind of vague?). I don't expect the illustrations representing this DLC to overcome any problems there might be in the original title -- only that if the original game turns out to be decent, this DLC looks like it might be very cool. I'm really tired of zombie games, but the style looks var more lively (pardon the pun) than what I've seen, so far.
I remember the days when expansion packs were greeted with joy and excitement. Sure, all DLC could be put in the retail package but the game would never be released. They will have finished working on the main retail release a while back. Production of discs and boxes takes time, as does distribution. During that time, these guys have been working to make the game experience longer lived. Like all of us, they have food to buy, you want them to work for free? Grow. The fuck. Up.
The release is 'later this year'. Now, bearing in mind that DLC takes little or no disc-pressing or distribution shipping time, that gives them about 2 more months to work on the DLC from where it is now. This will mainly be art and mission development as well as extensive testing.
Announcing it early is not an indication that they are trying to suck you dry, but confirmation of their commitment to the game and community in the long run. We all hate it when support for a game is dropped. The retail package looks pretty good value to me.
Developers (good ones anyway) ALWAYS have more cool ideas than they can realistically fit into a realistic development cycle and a retail package. Remember that a longer development cycle means longer paying your staff and overheads without any company income to rebalance the books. A line has to be drawn, a deadline must be set.
DLC is an efficient way to release additional content developed at an appropriate speed rather than rushed to meet a deadline and left flawed. I'd rather get extra content later than loads of buggy content sooner with a hasty patch to fix it. Sometimes DLC is abused, but maybe you guys could all just wait until the release (or a review anyway) and then make an informed and rational decision on the value on offer and whether or not to buy. But hey, this is the internet, I guess I shouldn't expect informed and rational opinions.
I'll tell you EXACTLY why this isn't included in the full game. Because by the time you reach a release date artists, designers and coders have had some down time whilst the marketing guys and certification guys do thier job. Which leaves them time to come up with ideas on what they want to do next.
If you wanted this lot in the final release then you'd likely have to wait til Christmas for the game... and to include the next DLC you'd have to wait til march and to include all the other DLCs that might come out for this game you'd be waiting forever because GBX would go bust in the meantime.
Question: Does it say the DLC is out the week after release? Does it? No, it doesn't. Which means GBX know what they WANT to do but haven't necessarily done and finished it yet - which is also why this won't be in the initial release. 'But there are three screenshots there which means it must be complete already!' <- Don't be an idiot. How long do you think it took to put three screenshots together??
GBX also has the gearbuilder system in place so generating extra loot is now a case of adding extra, custom, weapon parts and not crafting entirely new weapons. Things like this make designing DLC faster, surely?
Do you know why ppl like bungie take a few months after release to start talking about extra maps and the like? It's because the team break thier nuts until D-Day and then all take a 1 month holiday after release. Nothing gets done for a while after release and this is what we have gotten used to, that's why it's acceptable. This is why so many ppl think they smell a rat when DLC is announced soon after release.
Instead of complaining here go and scream bloody murder on Activisions boards who are hiking the price of the most hyped game in the last few years (MW2) whilst claiming that "This is an industry where things cost a lot to develop and it’s a risky business" - sure, releasing MW2 was a massive risk. I mean who in thier right mind would buy it?
Be happy that Borderlands will more than likely provide it's money's worth and that if the press hands-on reports that are coming back do it justice it may well be the most original title this year.
In the end, I see no wrong with the company making money off a franchise that they have worked hard on for so long. If they have PLANS for DLC before the game hits the shelves then that's fine. If they were to chase down every piece of content that might make the first release then nothing would ever hit the shelves.
Man, this is a bad business decision on gearbox's part. If they are going to bring out DLC so early at least wait until the game is out. This would be less shady if they announced it a week before the DLC would come out because then all this talk about "OMG Games not out yet how can DLC be ready" would be circumvented by "Sick the accounced DLC and its coming out so soon. Gearbox is aweomse."
What's the level cap in Borderlands anyway? Fallout 3's level cap was easily reached before finishing the main quest and all the side quests. It made the last third of the game somewhat boring knowing I was so tricked out against what enemies there were.
Borderlands really reminds me of Fallout for whatever reason, and I'm just hoping reaching the max level in it will still leave the game difficult or at least when you reach the max level you are 80%+ done with the games content.
Mark my words if this game turns out to be a sales turd thats the end of Gearbox as in shuttered. That being said i'm cautiously optimistic but they are putting all there eggs into one basket.
@Zlatko: It will probably take you at least two play-throughs to hit the level cap if what Jeff was saying in the quick look was accurate. So don't worry about hitting an artificially low level cap like in Fallout 3.
Kinda interesting that the Gearbox team started working on this DLC during certification, points to there not being another Brothers in Arms game yet.
This looks like a cool addition. I can't see myself exhausting the content on disc quickly (don't have a ton of time to play games) so it's not a must-buy for me, but I'm glad support is coming so that if I create characters other than my main, I can buy some new levels to play.
I think they should just release DLC the day the game comes out so they can make $70-90 right off the bat. The code should also be on the ship disc, but we should have to pay to unlock it. I HATE how this is just becoming ingrained into us that this is somehow OK for them to do! It's not, and it suck, and I don't buy the stuff because of it.
" I'll take solace in the fact that knowledge is bliss in this case. And knowing that this was never intended for the full game (how weird would it be for Gearbox to say, "oh, by the way, there's now franken-zombies in Borderlands native story mode"?) makes me happier that it can be part of my Borderlands instance if I want to pony up the $10 support for support."
Amen to this comment. It seems to be me that the sticking point for a lot of people on this thread is that Gearbox announced the dlc before the release and not after. I'm confused about why this is such a big problem. Are people really that ignorant about the development process? Of course they had the dlc in the pipeline. I have no doubt that they probably planned on producing this content from the outset of making the main game itself. That's what good companies do. They plan ahead and execute. I just really don't get why people would like to remain in the dark and not know this information.
Like it or not folks, with quality "triple AAA" titles like Borderlands that are based on a brand new ip companies are going to look to maximize their profits. Look at the quality of this game!
@Jayzilla:@moocow21: Here's a little something from your friendly neighborhood game developer. Content for games gets finished weeks or even months in advance of the game coming out. After this "content lockdown" the game goes through an intensive technical process called "certification", to iron out any bugs that would cause problems with the platforms its being released for. Content people (art, audio, animation, level design, game design) can't do ANYTHING else to the game for this period. The game is already "done".
So if Gearbox took some of its content people to keep creating more content while the code people finished up "cert" on the actual game, guess what? That ADDITIONAL content is not "should've been in the box", it's extra DLC. This isn't horse armor here, it's a completely new environment created after the game was completed. Wash the sand out of your vagina and quit bitching.
When DLC like this became possible on home consoles people started bitching at company's that didn't announce DLC. The companies assumed people must really want DLC, so they began to start working on DLC and announce it right when they finish development on the game(like what happened here with Borderlands), but surprise, people bitch about that too. If they didn't announce the DLC, people would bitch.....If they did what these people seem to want and delay the game for six or so months just to put the DLC content into the actual game, people would bitch.
There was a very good interview that Mikey Neumann, creative director at Gearbox, did a while ago that talks about DLC and how it fits into our production schedule. Here's a snippet of the relevant bit, but the whole article is a good read:
"Shack: Can you explain why, even though you're coming up with this stuff now while the game is still in development, you can't incorporate it into the retail release?
Mikey Neumann: We're shooting for October 2009, so you can subtract two and a half to three months for certification time. Certification is what you go through with Microsoft and Sony, and to a lesser degree your publisher.
Certification is to make sure the games are bug free and shippable. Without certification, you'd have games that crash and not work.
Subtract three months off of October and you're, you know, now.
What happens a lot of the time is you finish your game and it's time for cert, and during cert a lot of bugs crop up that you have to fix, and a lot of them are really, really big bugs. You are certainly not adding any content to the game at all. A level? No way.
But, during cert, if you have a lot of level designers who have nothing to do--which is pretty common, you pull level design and art off first--they're gonna be making cool shit and want to make cool shit. That cool shit, that tends to be what DLC ends up being. It's the stuff we couldn't add to the game because we're making it during cert, which is impossible to get into the [retail] game."
(http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1159 for whole thing)
@TheGunhaver: That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I have no problem with them working on new content once the full game goes gold (which didn't happen until within the last few weeks, which is why I'm so surprised they already have a DLC ready to announce and show pics of), but I don't want them to shove 1-3 hour pieces of "DLC" at me for $10. If they instead craft something substantial (20-30 hours for an RPG, maybe 8-10 for an FPS, so somewhere in the middle for this game) for $20-30 or so I'd be interested. I'm not "bitching", I'm just choosing not to buy the game if the post launch support is short and overpriced (unless the PC version has a level editor, which I'm not sure if it does so if someone knows I'd appreciate the info). Take Fallout 3, for example. They throw out 5 DLC that are each around 3-5 hours long that add up to $50 and about 15-25 hours. All this "DLC" is double the price for half the content Bethesda offered in proper expansion packs for Morrowind.
i think this is a new trend we are going to start seeing as games are released. i really dont mind dropping a little extra coin on the dlc - probably after i complete the original game and find that i hunger for more! but i can definitely see that the timing of this announcement was a little too early.
271 Comments