A good argument for day one DLC

I was listening to the HotSpot podcast where they had an interview with Bioware's Casey Hudson, the project director on Mass Effect 1 and 2. He said that they have to be hands-off with the game for about 12 weeks before release. All they can do during that period is bug test, no new content can be added to the game to avoid the risk of introducing new bugs.
 
That means there is a 3 month period during which the developer can create more content that can be released as DLC. That is plenty of time to make some content for day one DLC, and as such I really don't think people should complain when a game does have day one DLC without some kind of proof that the content was there before that 3 month period. And as Jeff put it at one time, before the introduction of downloadable content, most of that extra stuff would never see the light of day unless there was enough of it to warrant an expansion pack.
 
I have always been on the fence about the notion of day one downloadable content, and often I felt that the community reacted way too harshly on such things without knowing anything about the development cycle of the game. I'm glad that a developer finally shed some light on this process.

I agree, Day One DLC isn't all that bad.  It's only bad when the download is like 50 kb and is a 10 dollar purchase, that pretty much says that it's on the disc. 

I think the developers could save themselves a lot of hassle and hate from players if they made that DLC and than just held it for a week or two. Just doing that would reduce the heat they would take.  

There is no good argument for DLC in my mind. It's a loose loose situation. If you release DLC day one it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths and they complain that that content should be on the disc and they feel like they are being ripped off. If you hold off and release the DLC a month later then people complain that it's content that should have been on the disc that you held out on them in order to milk them for more money and they feel ripped off. Your better off doing a traditional expansion pack in my mind and if stuff gets cut and winds up on the cutting room floor well... that stuff usually ends up down there for a reason.

i just have to say that i  hate when new content comes out in like a couple of months of the game coming out. it is pretty much the company wanting more money from the game. i just think that DLC is also a rip off a little. i don't feel like i got my monies worth when buying DLC. the last thing that i bought was fable 2 the two DLC that came out. see the future wasn't that great.  
 
developers should find a way to get DLC to become free in some way. the one like resident evil 5 with the pretty much code to unlock multiplayer, that was horrible. on the PC they make them free to download. in TF2 PC get a crapload of updates while on the xbox 360 and ps3 dont' get them.

I like what developers/publishers have been doing lately with putting download codes in the boxes. From their end it means less people buying used copies, and on the gamer's end it's free stuff. Charging for Day One DLC, even when that's justified, certainly doesn't give them any good will.

If I really like a game I don't have any problem forking over a few bucks for some new content.  Odds are if I like a game then I feel the devs deserve the extra cash anyway.  Either way it is silly to not want DLC at all... you don't have to buy it.  It isn't like it is part of the story arc of the game(Assassin's Creed 2 being an exception).

Well, I wasn't expecting to agree with whatever argument you were going to come up with, but jeez, it looks like I do agree afterall. That's a good enough explanation for me.

Are you talking about free anti-second-hand D1 DLC like Zaeed and Sten, or regular paid-for DLC like Warden's Keep?

DLC is fine in any way, shape or form. No one is forcing you to buy it. No one cares about the bad taste in your mouth. 
 
(Obviously not directed at the OP)

" There is no good argument for DLC in my mind. It's a loose loose situation. If you release DLC day one it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths and they complain that that content should be on the disc and they feel like they are being ripped off. If you hold off and release the DLC a month later then people complain that it's content that should have been on the disc that you held out on them in order to milk them for more money and they feel ripped off. Your better off doing a traditional expansion pack in my mind and if stuff gets cut and winds up on the cutting room floor well... that stuff usually ends up down there for a reason. "

Remember that Warden's Keep was free for the PC: Collector's Edition: Download-able Version since you didn't get a cloth map or spiffy metal box.

Seth Killian also wrote somthing about this 
 
 

If the costumes were made AFTER the game's initial release and went BEYOND the original scope of development — and NOT on the disc — paying for them would be more than acceptable.

Seth: [...] I bought the Borderland's downloadable content (DLC) for "The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned." It was released after the main game, and it was an actual download that took a half-hour to complete. Okay, so I spent a half-hour waiting for it after I decided to buy. Is that somehow better than an unlock? Why, exactly?

Is it because you think the Borderlands team started on the "Dr. Ned" DLC *after* the main game came out? Because they didn't. They began development long before the game was finished. Are you saying that I, as a player, should somehow care about the creation start date of the content? Because I don't. I enjoyed Borderlands and wanted to play some more. I'm not sure why I should be interested in when the Borderlands team started working on it — I'm just happy it was there, and was happy to pay for some additional fun in a universe I was enjoying.

At any rate, although it was not on the disc, the Borderlands team were done with the DLC well before launch of the actual game. This is also the case for virtually all other significant DLC that comes out within 6-8 months of a game's launch, and will be the case for Super Street Fighter IV costumes.

DLC costs money because it costs additional money to create. Those costs are the same, regardless of whether the created content gets delivered on a disc, or as a download. I can understand wanting as much as you can have for the lowest price (and SSFIV will give you a lot at a low price), and not wanting to pay for DLC at all, but I have never been able to understand the whole "on the disc" vs. "downloaded" distinction.

IMO the SFIV DLC is the easiest kind, because it doesn't affect the core experience — it's literally eye-candy. You're of course free to come to whatever conclusion you want about buying DLC, but the whole "on the disc/not on the disc" question seems like a total red herring to me. Developers create DLC in parallel with core game development. It has its own budgets and schedules, and is often finished before the core game. It's there as an option for big fans of a given franchise, and your support helps them to create more products in that universe (which you presumably think is a pretty good thing overall).

I still don't think you understand, paying for costumes sucks!

Seth: [...] If you need me to understand that you don't like paying for costumes — believe me, I have heard it loud and clear.

Super Street Fighter IV is packing a lot of value into the core product — hopefully we can share the reduced price soon and that will be a reason for some smiles. I gave you my thoughts on the "on disc" vs "download" issue earlier here, and even if you think I'm an idiot, it remains true that it's a very good time to be a Street Fighter, and I hope you will have fun with the game, DLC or no. My hope is that political feelings about costume pricing structures aren't a big enough deal to miss out on punching some fools in the face.

 In 90% of cases I'm supportive of DLC but Seth is not making a good argument. How can you say that content already lurking on the disc that one already purchased is worth the same amount of money as all new content? 
 
I like when he says, "Developers create DLC in parallel with core game development." Because it's so true. It's worked this way for years, even before this generation of consoles. The only difference is that before, they didn't have DL in the branding and it was just considered C. At the end of the day it's still Street Fighter content, made by the Street Fighter developers as they make the Street Fighter game. So why does it cost more than the Street Fighter price? Does anyone really believe that Capcom suffered additional costs to create this DLC that would not have occured if it were just an unlockable on the disc? Of course not.
 
Comparing costumes to Zombie Island was an absurd start to the piece anyway.

I am fine with DLC at any time Day one on as long as 1)The game on the disc is a satisfying experience.  Don't give me a 5 hour game and expect me to download more and 2) Don't give me a key to unlock material already on a disc I have already purchased.