Bad Company 2 getting launch DLC

By Tom Bramwell Published 11 February, 2010

Plus "long post-launch campaign".

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 will be supported by day-one downloadable content in line with EA's Project Ten Dollar plan.

Senior producer Patrich Bach from developer DICE toed the new line in an interview with WorthPlaying.

"We have an in-game store where you get free content or you can buy new content to the game, so it's a very integral part of the game that we will have a long post-launch campaign," he said.

"I think people will be thrilled to see what's in that already. On day one, you will get some really cool stuff."

Last month DICE executive producer Karl Magnus Troedsson said that the game would provide "a good bit of stuff for free", as well as paid DLC.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is due out for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 on 5th March.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (69) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • LiveForever #1 2 years ago

    Talking about DLC at launch, is it possible to get the achievement in Mass Effect 2 for all ur team to survive if you dont have the mercenary DLC character in ur team ?

  • darkmorgado #2 2 years ago

    I support anything that punishes rip-off merchants like GAME and CEX from reselling a second hand game for only a quid cheaper than first-hand prices. Hell, with CEX they regularly sell second-hand games for MORE than they cost firsthand.

    Anything that takes some cash from the retailers and puts it in the dev's pocket is good news.

  • tossetaz #3 2 years ago

    #2 Agree, I think what BioWare did was a very smart move.

  • Bloobat #4 2 years ago

    at least some of it will be free, i just hope that it doesn't turn into ' who has the best DLC can dominate in the game...'

  • Brainz #5 2 years ago

    imho its totally bs.
    i preorderd BC2 LE for EUR 60 so i can play it on launch. this DLC crap on launch day makes me feel that i dont have a "complete" game and (maybe) miss something.
    go ahead EA, i wont cancel BC2 preorder but next time i have to choose between two games i rather take the one not published by you.

  • mcwildcard #6 2 years ago

    @Brainz - I think you've missed the point, if you get the game brand new, then you get a voucher for the DLC included, but if it's bought 2nd hand, that voucher is spent, so the buyer will have to fork out for it.

    Very clever idea, doesn't punish first hand buyers, ensures some revenue from second hand sales.
    I'm all for it tbh.
    Edited by mcwildcard at 11/02/10 @ 10:29

  • ignatiusjreilly #7 2 years ago

    Anything that takes some cash from the retailers and puts it in the dev's pocket is good news.

    The financial benefits of buying and selling of second-hand games aren't just for retailers of course. It saves the average gamer an awful lot of money.

  • trevd72 #8 2 years ago

    and wot of those without broadband or just don't have the xbox hooked up for what ever reason. They are being punished me thinks.
    Edited by trevd72 at 11/02/10 @ 10:50

  • mcwildcard #9 2 years ago

    "wot of those without broadband or just don't have the xbox hocked up for what ever reason. They are being punished me thinks"

    That small minority of people should join us in the 21st Century, it has been going for over a decade now.

  • darkmorgado #10 2 years ago

    The financial benefits of buying and selling of second-hand games aren't just for retailers of course. It saves the average gamer an awful lot of money.

    Hardly - unless a game is years old, second-hand prices at retail are only a couple of quid cheaper at best, and quite often more expensive. CEX regularly and deliberately price their games HIGHER than RRP for example and they often go to all nearby retailers and buy out all their stock of a single title to create artificial demand in their stores

  • Vedfolner #11 2 years ago

    Okay seriously; hating this!!!!

  • ignatiusjreilly #12 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado

    They might not save much money buying them (although any discount is nice on a £40 game) but they sure save a hell of a lot by selling them in the first place.

  • darkmorgado #13 2 years ago

    @Vedfolner

    Why?

  • darkmorgado #14 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    I don't know, I stopped selling my games ages ago. When you've bought a game for £40 then sell it a week later and only get a tenner back for it, only to see it repriced for £38 quid, it's quite a slap in the face.

  • darkmorgado #15 2 years ago

    I just don't get people who sell their games as soon as they've finished them. Wouldn't they be better off by just using something like Lovefilm? £12.99 a month, rent 2 games at a time (and unlimited DVDs) and keep them as long as you want. Makes more sense than buying games at full price, selling them a week later for a third or a quarter price and then using the cash towards buying another game at full price, etc etc.

  • Vedfolner #16 2 years ago

    Elaborating on that a bit: I'm all for money in the developers pockets, but why should the (more) money come from me? I already payed for the bloody game - I didn't buy it second hand. If they want to keep retailers from making money on second hand games they can just include vouchers for the DLC-stuff in the box. It ends right there. Greedy b*stards.

  • darkmorgado #17 2 years ago

    @Vedfolner,

    Erm that is exactly what they are doing though - first-hand copies come with redeemable codes to get the content for free, but chargeable for people who buy it second hand. Mass Effect is like this for example, so was DA:o. If you're talking about post-release content, then that's an entirely separate issue.

  • mcwildcard #18 2 years ago

    If you're on the right forums you'll find buy and sell areas for trusted members where selling a game on within a couple of weeks of release means you only make a loss of about a fiver or so. I rarely sell my games to Cex or the like, unless they're really old and none of my friends are interested.

  • DrDamn #19 2 years ago

    @Velfolner
    I suggest you read the article rather than just the headline.

  • darkmorgado #20 2 years ago

    @mcwildcard

    I get what you're saying, but places like GAME and CEX get massive business because to the vast majority of the public, trawling internet forums, finding a buyer, transferring money and then going to the post office isn't worth the bother or the waiting time, and a lot of the time they will just go for the "trade in this game and get £25 pounds off this game" offers in GAME, not realising that they are effectively being ripped off.

  • ignatiusjreilly #21 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado: but that £10 means you've effectively saved 25% or more of your next game, no? If you don't want to sell it that's fine of course, but for many people it's the difference between being able to afford a new game or not.

    Can anyone think of any other product where it is unfair for you to sell it on afterwards? A single one? What makes games so special that they should be exempt from something that people have been doing since money was invented?

  • M_of_the_sys #22 2 years ago

    I was going to ask what the point of day one DLC was until I read darkmorgado's post. :-)

  • darkmorgado #23 2 years ago

    Can anyone think of any other product where it is unfair for you to sell it on afterwards? A single one? What makes games so special that they should be exempt from something that people have been doing since money was invented?


    I think it's a question of scale. GAME and CEX's entire business model is based on second-hand sales. Name me one major retailer that focuses on second-hand sales of CDs, for example.

    Plus, for your ten pound discount point, see my point about Lovefilm. Makes a lot more sense than buying games at full price and then selling them for a discount on another full price game.

  • ignatiusjreilly #24 2 years ago

    My point isn't that Game give you good value or not, and I'm sure the games publishers don't care about that either - in fact, if you got a fairer sale/buy price then surely they'd be complaining even louder.

    My point is that you have the right to sell it to whoever you want for whatever price you want, and that publishers who attempt to stop that are costing gamers money, not just the retailers.

  • darkmorgado #25 2 years ago

    It occurs to me as well that this will have a knock-on effect of forcing retailers to reduce the prices they charge for second-hand games as they will have to factor in the additional cost to the buyer for getting the extra content. A second hand game for £38 quid and a tenner on top to get the content, or £40 quid for the game and the content on top? I know which I would choose. I think it's a very clever move; retailers will have to reduce their prices, which will force them to rethink their business model as they will be getting less profit from second-hand sales. Consumers win either way as prices will go down. Simple.

  • trevd72 #26 2 years ago

    mcwildcard - there are plenty places that dont have broadband. half my village can't but i can, something to do with being wired to the exchange that is out of range rather than the closer one. also some people can't be arsed to wire their xbox up to their router or see paying for the xbox wireless thing a bit pricey which is it compared to a wireless to ethernet adapter.

    what i am saying is not everyone is the same and some people will get the full value of their purchase and others won't.

    so do as darkmorgado suggests, hire the game don't play to the publishers rules. they think its fine to split the content between dvd and download, release at inflated price points cos they know they can (mw2), release games that they know are half done or shit.

    pay boomerang £10 for one game at a time and return as many times as you like. so that's £120 for a year of games. Play to our rules not theirs.

    and no its not the same as piracy...which ever arsehole said that at the back.

  • Vedfolner #27 2 years ago

    DrDamn: I suggest you do the same:
    "We have an in-game store where you get free content or you can buy new content to the game".
    Some stuff is free and some is not.

    darkmorgado: Erm, I know there are free content vouchers with new games today. I also know that there isn't free vouchers for all the DLC released on day one. Check out Dragon Age and Madden 10 for more info in that regard.
    My former statement is valid.

  • ignatiusjreilly #28 2 years ago

    Consumers win either way as prices will go down. Simple.

    I don't understand the logic - how will prices go dowm? If a consumer previously paid £38 for a full second hand game, but now has the choice of paying £40 or £38 +£10, how is that less expensive?

  • darkmorgado #29 2 years ago

    some people can't be arsed to wire their xbox up to their router

    Really? Are people that lazy that it's too much work to plug a cable into something?

  • darkmorgado #30 2 years ago

    I don't understand the logic - how will prices go dowm? If a consumer previously paid £38 for a full second hand game, but now has the choice of paying £40 or £38 +£10, how is that less expensive?

    Because the retailers will have to drop the price of the second hand copy to factor in the additional cost to the consumer for the extra content, otherwise they won't get any second-hand sales.

  • darkmorgado #31 2 years ago

    I also know that there isn't free vouchers for all the DLC released on day one. Check out Dragon Age and Madden 10 for more info in that regard.

    That's a separate issue IMO, but as long as the DLC represents value for money and is not integral to obtaining full enjoyment of the product then I'm not too bothered. Dragon Age was a complete experience with or without the paid-for DLC. I didn't feel like I was ripped off because there was already a good 50-60 hours of enjoyment out the box.

  • joebount #32 2 years ago

    As long as EA (and other publishers) provide a quality content to avoid beeing screwed by GAMES/CEX/YOUNAMEIT preowned copies (come on, 40£ for MW2 in preowned !!! Oo), I really support that.
    Cheery on the cake if the additionnal content is of the quality of Burnout's one.

    Don't you think that all the shop that sells preowned games should pay a small amount back to the publishers (like 15%), it would seem fair to me.

  • ignatiusjreilly #33 2 years ago

    factor in the additional cost to the consumer for the extra content

    I thought you were explaining how this would be cheaper for consumers?

  • darkmorgado #34 2 years ago

    @joebout,

    Would seem fair to me as well, but that would require the Government to step in and we know supportive they are of the Games Industry, don't we?

  • darkmorgado #35 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    It's simple. The retailers will know that someone isn't going to buy a second hand copy and pay extra to get all the content if it is cheaper for them to just buy it first hand. Therefore they will have to remain competitive in order to retain second-hand sales, and that will mean lowering the price of second-hand games in order to maintain the illusion of "value for money" to the consumer. Ok, it's possible that prices will only drop by the exact price of the DLC, but not everyone will really care about an extra character or mission and for them it will be a significant saving.

  • ignatiusjreilly #36 2 years ago

    OK, let's agree to disagree :)

    I will only say that if this change meant consumers were getting a better deal on second-hand sales, then publishers wouldn't be doing it in the first place. The whole point is to encourage new sales.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/02/10 @ 11:32

  • sneetch #37 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly
    Can anyone think of any other product where it is unfair for you to sell it on afterwards? A single one? What makes games so special that they should be exempt from something that people have been doing since money was invented?

    Orange juice? I don't want second hand orange juice. ;)

    The simple answer is that they want you to think you're buying the rights to play the software as a service and the disk is merely provided as a convenience for you. The consumer wants to think they're buying the disk and that that disk is what's important.

    If you're buying rights to play something as part of a service then those rights aren't necessarily transferable to another, if you're buying a physical thing then you should be able to resell it no problems. Toyota won't sue me if I sell my car, Microsoft might if I sell my copy of Windows to someone else.

  • sneetch #38 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado
    It occurs to me as well that this will have a knock-on effect of forcing retailers to reduce the prices they charge for second-hand games as they will have to factor in the additional cost to the buyer for getting the extra content.

    Or else they'll have to deal with irate people complaining that they were sold half a game.

  • darkmorgado #39 2 years ago

    @sneetch

    Exactly! Someone gets it!

  • Vedfolner #40 2 years ago

    - "I also know that there isn't free vouchers for all the DLC released on day one. Check out Dragon Age and Madden 10 for more info in that regard."

    - "That's a separate issue IMO"

    darkmorgado: Well, I just don't see how it's a seperate issue. If all the developers and distributors want is to target the retailindustry as you argue, then why are they charging for some of the DLC released on day one?
    Why not just make it all free?

  • darkmorgado #41 2 years ago

    @Vedfolner.

    Issue one - DLC that is free for first-hand purchasers but chargeable for second-hand.

    Issue two - DLC that is chargeable to EVERYONE regardless of how they bought their copy.

    See? Two different things.

  • darkmorgado #42 2 years ago

    For the record, I am very iffy about PAID for launch-day DLC, or content that is already on the disc and has to be paid for to unlock (as Capcom are fond of doing - see SFIV or RE5). But if the content is free because I bought the game first-hand then I don't see a problem.

  • ignatiusjreilly #43 2 years ago

    If you're buying rights to play something as part of a service then those rights aren't necessarily transferable to another

    But they obviously are transferrable, because selling and buying second hand games is perfectly legal. If games publishers could use that argument to stop second hand games sales they would have done so by now. Luckily, the law sees it as a consumer's right and so do I :)

    edit: I should just say that I don't think I've ever sold a game in my life. It's the principle of the matter I am concerned with.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/02/10 @ 11:54

  • Vedfolner #44 2 years ago

    "...if the content is free because I bought the game first-hand then I don't see a problem."

    darkmorgado: Totally agree with this.

    "I am very iffy about PAID for launch-day DLC"

    darkmorgado: Here you agree that charging for DLC on release-day is greedy which was my point to begin with. Thanks :)

  • 00.00.01 #45 2 years ago

    @joebount 11/02/10 @ 11:15
    Sweet. So if a developer sells a 100.000 copies to, let's say GAME and they only sell 50.000...then the Dev is buying back the remaining copies as well? The (global) gaming industry is big as in B.I.G. Example...Sony used to be a 'consumer-electronics' brand. After a mere 15 years of Playstation/SCE the SCE-section is making more money than all their other electronic divisions combined.

  • darkmorgado #46 2 years ago

    SCE-section is making more money than all their other electronic divisions combined.

    Is it? It was my understanding that SCE runs at a substantial loss due to the massive R&D costs and selling hardware at a loss, and so do Microsoft. As far as I was aware, Nintendo are the only console manufacturer that always sell hardware for a profit.

  • Murton #47 2 years ago

    I bought Dragon Age from GameStation yesterday and seeing them put the manual and disc in the box I noticed that the manual have a couple of nicks in it, I decided to open the box and check the manual properly for damage and found that the code card wasn't in there, mentioned to the lad on the counter and he swapped it for a sealed one.

    I can't imagine that code cards being missing from the boxes is a rare either when buying from the street retailers as they tend to put the discs and manuals and whatnot in a drawer behind the counter, I've known people to buy MMOs and not get a serial in their box because of this.

  • darkmorgado #48 2 years ago

    @Murton,

    That's not really the fault of the devs/publishers though is it? It's the fault of the retailer not paying enough attention or making sure they are doing their job properly.

    On that note, I would be interested to know whether a retailer could be legally challenged for doing something like this as it would effectively be a breach trade descriptions.

  • Buran #49 2 years ago

    Not buying DLC. THe game is godlike and I'll buy it day 1, but I refuse to buy any DLC to any game. I bought BF 2 and Special Foces expansion, but not the DLC maps, the same here: expansions = quality (sometimes), DLC = crap (usually).

  • darkmorgado #50 2 years ago

    @Buran, you make your own argument against you.

    You say expansions are "sometimes" good and that DLC is "usually" bad, but that's the same thing isn't it? And the prices should be proportionate. I have no problem with paying for a couple of extra maps or missions as long as it is priced appropriately. At the same time I have been extremely pissed off after being ripped off with a retail expansion pack that barely adds anything new to the game - the Sims, for example.

  • DrDamn #51 2 years ago

    @Vedfolner
    You weren't exactly clear on your point. If your argument is therefore about day one paid for DLC then do you have the same problem with all paid for DLC or just day one paid for DLC?

    If it's just day one then why does it matter when it was developed and released? What matters is whether the main game is worth your money and whether the DLC represents value for money. Whether it is developed in time for day one release or not is irrelevant. The time and effort still has to be put in to develop it regardless of when it is released.

  • bratmandu #52 2 years ago

    Is it 'write a wall of text day'?

  • gjgjg #53 2 years ago

    DLC is the new ...well everything it seems!

  • Murton #54 2 years ago

    Darkmorgado: just pointing out a weakness in the system. Personally I have nothing against day one free DLC as it represents no loss in value for the consumer but helps the developer ensure strong sales post release as people think twice about pre-owned.

    A lot of people are also jumping on the argument "ready for day one release means it could be in the game" As a former QA I can tell you that is simply not the case. Games go for certification testing with MS/Sony as early as 6 weeks before release, that gives plenty of time to create a small DLC, especially if existing assets can be used. The only time you can really call foul is if there's a load of new features in the DLC or it included storyline content, at that point I'd be inclined to agree that it's likely that a module was removed purely to get an extra tenner for it as a DLC.

  • Vedfolner #55 2 years ago

    @DrDamn. My argument is only regarding day one paid for DLC. Naturally I can appreciate that developers have to use time to develop. I guess I feel victimized, really (go on laugh it up). I am very passionate about computergames and feel that developers and distributors take advantage of that when they release paid for DLC on day one. When I buy a game on its day of release, get it home and start playing I'm just not able to enjoy it as much if I know I haven't got the complete package. To enjoy it to the fullest I have to have the complete experience. And to get that I have to pay for day one DLC which make me feel like som kind of strange moronic games addict. Either way I lose.
    To me it's another matter completely regarding paid for DLC that is released some time (4-6 months sounds about right) after the games initial release date. At that time I'm much better able to judge if the title justifies an additional purchase.

  • DrDamn #56 2 years ago

    So why not just play the game as delivered on day one and wait 4 - 6 months before deciding if you want the DLC, it doesn't matter that it's been available the whole time does it? You have to base the buying decisions on what you get, not when it was made or available.

    If the main game is missing components which they provide as DLC and the overall cost is excessive then don't buy the game. If the game is fine but the DLC is overpriced then just buy the game, and if both are good then buy both. The only thing that matters is if you feel the price is right for what you are getting.

  • Skurmedel #57 2 years ago

    Not much to say in this case, I'll get the DLC anyhow since I preordered it. But I think skepticism about first day DLC is at least somewhat justified.

    If you ever played Skate 2 on launch day you know what I mean. Certain features, like the extra camera stuff were even mentioned in the in-game help, but naturally you had to pay for it. I bought the game on the conception that these things were in there from the start, but they weren't. I bought the DLC for the inflated price of 400 microsoft points, but since it was like three extra camera setups for the replay editor I couldn't help feel a bit ripped off.

    I think that was a case of bad first day DLC.

    Also that highlights another problem, estimating the value of the "core" product might become harder. Will I be satisfied with what I'm buying or do I need the other trinkets around it?

  • sneetch #58 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly
    If you're buying rights to play something as part of a service then those rights aren't necessarily transferable to another

    But they obviously are transferrable, because selling and buying second hand games is perfectly legal. If games publishers could use that argument to stop second hand games sales they would have done so by now. Luckily, the law sees it as a consumer's right and so do I :)

    edit: I should just say that I don't think I've ever sold a game in my life. It's the principle of the matter I am concerned with.

    I think that's because, for console games anyway, the physical disk is still what's important. This launch DLC thing (and DLC in general) is just changing it so the licence/service is more important: that content is tied to a single account and is non-trade-able.

    In the PC world it's more the single-user, non-transferable licence thing. I'm not convinced of the legality of selling PC games second hand... but your local laws may vary. ;)

  • Vedfolner #59 2 years ago

    "So why not just play the game as delivered on day one and wait 4 - 6 months before deciding if you want the DLC, it doesn't matter that it's been available the whole time does it?"

    @Dr. Damn: To quote myself: "When I buy a game on its day of release, get it home and start playing I'm just not able to enjoy it as much if I know I haven't got the complete package."

    As in "I can´t enjoy the game properly under those circumstances." That's why.

  • Skurmedel #60 2 years ago

    If it's not legal to sell games second hand in your country, then the laws of your country is fucked up :) Frankly I think they should reinforce peoples right to resell games.
    Edited by Skurmedel at 11/02/10 @ 16:12

  • DrDamn #61 2 years ago

    @Vedfolner
    Isn't that more a problem with you and your attitude than the game/dev/publisher though? If you knew there would be DLC 4-6 months down the line then you know the retail release isn't "the complete package" too.

  • thubie #62 2 years ago

    Nice the game is probably gone gold already nice to see the devs are going to support this.
    Bad company 1 got conquest mode for free.

  • holloguts #63 2 years ago

    The local dealer I use trades games at a price where he makes no more than £5 on each trade maximum. This is an independant dealer who gives good value for money. This idea of EA's won't damage his sales because all second hand games bought can be taken back to the shop within 5 days and replaced for another secondhand game of the same value, giving even better value. He simply advertises the offer as 'play two games for the price of one'. Works quite well and his store covers a lot of floorspace. He also deals in second hand dvd and cd's.

    Would EA's dlc system stop me buying from the store? No. Bishock 2 is a game I will play. But I will wait for the price to drop to around £15 in around 6 to 8 months time. The multiplayer goesn't interest me, it looks like an afterthought. Battlefield:Bad Company 2 - tried the demo, nothing but hassle from EA's servers. Decided it was pathetic like all EA's servers usually are, slagged off the servers (not the game), but was told the servers were now fixed. Retried the game, found Battlefield bad company 2 to play great now on the servers. The fact battlefield plays well now on the servers and is such a good game is the reason I will buy this game new (still from the same store). It is not becauise of the extra download content, I couldnt care less about it. Never buy much DLC anyway. Considering the massive profits EA make, I think trying to make extra money from someone who's bought secondhand is just showing what EA is really all about, low quality and greedy.

    I'm sure everyone who agrees with EA is more than happy to pay extra when buying anything secondhand, to get in touch with the manafacturer and ask how much they would like you to send for their cut.

    Its taken EA a long time to work out how ro screw more out of people, the good part is, they can only do it to the online gamers.

  • Vedfolner #64 2 years ago

    @DrDamn: The paid for DLC is there from the off - that's the problem. Can't really explain myself any better I think.

  • VibratingDonkey #65 2 years ago

    This better be less messy than Mass Effect 2. At this rate my hard drive will be full with "free DLC". Speaking of which, it's so very insulting how people try to push this kind of stuff as free DLC. Makes me want to slap faces.

    Although DICE are typically good when it comes to actual free content. I think DICE's relationship with EA Europe's VP is beneficial when it comes to things like that. Dude used to be DICE's VP, since 1999.

  • Buran #66 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado: BC 2 is mainly a multiplayer game. A expansion usually provides a notable amount of new stuff that attracts some new players; sometimes a expansion even makes obsolete the original game (Brood War, Lord Of Destruction). This doesn't happens with small DLCs with a few maps.

    The DLCs will finish played by a small amount of players, with the main corpus of players and clans devoted to the initial contents, as in "Strike At Karkand" or "Dragon Valley" in Battlefield 2. The amount of players playing the BF 2 DLC maps were uber small until EA gifted freely the maps in the 1.5 patch last September. I don't see a Bad Company 2 per pay DLC working in the PC community.

  • darkmorgado #67 2 years ago

    I don't see how Lord of Destruction made Diablo 2 obsolete. All it provided was an extra character class and a small amount of new content.

  • DrDamn #68 2 years ago

    @Vedfolner
    Oh I understand that - it's just if you have no issue with paid for DLC in general then there is no logical reason why *when* it is released should matter - except in your personal perception.

    Make the assumption that the DLC is good. I.e. the main game is not cunningly missing vital components, and what the DLC adds is good, well done and worth the asking price. People still had to be set aside to work on it, they still needed to be paid. In fact from a consumer perspective if there is going to DLC like this, isn't it better that it is available as soon as possible? So it is ready there for you as soon as you complete the main game for those who want more.

    For a publisher having DLC ready for when players are ready for it is key to maximising the money they get from it. Not every title is like MW2 where people are playing for months and months after release. A lot of people will complete the game and move on. Release DLC 6 months after release and you've lost a lot of potential buyers.

  • Vedfolner #69 2 years ago

    @DrDamn
    Well, you know, I would love to have a more positive point of view regarding this matter, I really would. And I guess if publishers and developers would release there paid for DLC on day one and just leave me alone about it, I could (maybe!) get used to it over time. But I bought Dragon Age on it's day of release and the first thing the game screamed at me at its main menu was "YOU'RE MISSING OUT!" A blinking text with the words "New downloadable content avaliable!!!" nearly fried my eyes. If I wanted the annoying blinking to stop apparantly I had to buy the "new" content to the game I just bought on its day of release. I turned in the game the next day in anger and lost a fortune (Lim. Ed. and all). That's just not the right way to do it. If there is any right way to do it.