Topic: Special Editions vs. DLC / Merchandise vs. In-Game Content?

Prepare for a wall of text (sorry about that)...

After reading and replying to comments made on our Facebook page regarding the news on the Arkham Knight season pass, it's pretty clear that people feel like pre-ordering an expensive special edition makes you qualified for a free seasons pass or that it should be included in the edition extras to start with. In this case you can buy a digital edition where the season pass is included for a lot less than, say, the batmobile edition costs - the batmobile edition doesn't have the season pass. A similar discussion was held after Assassin's Creed: Unity's catastrophic launch.

Backstory; as an excuse for numerous, extensive patches to fix the game, Ubisoft decided to make DLC content free for everyone. This made the season pass more or less overpriced and rendered it obsolete. In order to refund those who had purchased a season pass, Ubisoft offered them to choose a game from their catalog; including new titles such as Far Cry 4 or the Crew (which at that point wasn't even out yet). This could be considered as a very grand gesture, but some still felt that the free game should have been offered to everyone who had pre-ordered and bought a special edition. The sentiment was that they too played the game when it was broken and they too had paid good money for their edition pack.

As I see it, buying a special edition is more or less paying extra for special, limited edition merchandise. Usually you get a figurine of the main protagonist or other physical memorabilia tied to the game in some way, maybe a disc with the game soundtrack and some concept art prints. It's also not unusual to find a code for a special skin, weapon or mission you can redeem to spice up your game, but that is usually as far as it goes when it comes to in-game content and adding to the in-game experience. The DLC, on the other hand, adds directly to the game experience (duh) but adds nothing to your living room/trophy cabinet. Basically what I'm saying is that you pay extra for two different things - the amount of money spent on one thing doesn't really change that.

I guess Evolve is one of the few games I can think of where they played around with different "bundles" of in-game content instead, rather than physical merch for the special editions. But truth be told, their gazillion different packs and editions confused me so much that I'm still not sure what was what or gave what or in the end ended up costing the most.

What are you opinions and thoughts in the matter? Should season passes be included in the pre-order editions? If so, would it be justified to up the price or are we already paying more than enough?

I'm inclined you agree with you. The special editions (and I own several Assassins Creed ones) include the game and the limited edition collectable item(s) such as a statue. I never expected it to include all the DLC and can only assume if it did, the already steep cost would be even higher.

Having seen our facebook comment section a few times, I'm sure that was delightful.

People like to complain, but if this stuff actually bothers people, then they need to stop buying the content. It really is that simple.

Everyone is up in arms today over a season pass (which I find hilarious seeing how there have been much more egregious instances in the past), but they'll still fork over their $60 on launch day for the game.

Just a bunch of noise that will dissipate in the nether.

I have no issues with DLC or Season Passes and whether or not they should be included in Special/Limited Editions. In the case of Batman: Arkham Knight, I pre-ordered the Amazon exclusive 12" Statue version that also includes an Artbook, comic and Steelbook. It doesn't however come with the Season Pass. Am I bothered - NO. It is more than the standard version and the 'extras' are not affecting any of the disc based content but I still feel this is worth the extra to me and its for these 'extras' that I am paying for. I am still getting a copy of the game and can't expect to get these 'extras' or the Season Pass for nothing.

As someone who has been gaming for over 35years now, I do struggle to understand some peoples opinion on DLC and particularly Season Passes. I paid £60 for Goldeneye on the N64 - now I know it was cartridge based and therefore manufacturing costs were higher but we still paid that much and were stuck with the amount of content - I would have bought 'extra' maps IF DLC had been available because of the amount of hours I would probably of got from those. Looking at CoD4 (probably the closest modern day equivalent), on release it cost less but offered more because it had more game modes, weapons etc. On disc we had a campaign and MP. Its single DLC pack cost £12 for 4 Maps. Moving forward to the XB1 era, CoD Ghosts and AW (regardless of what you think about the actual game play), the on disc content has been expanded. The campaign is of similar size, but the MP has been expanded upon - we get more customisation, weapons, options etc etc. Not only that, we now have a whole co-op experience - Extinction/Survival/Zombies. The DLC packs also offer more as they have 4 maps, a co-op map and often a weapon too. Instead of just the one pack, there are now 4 which separately would cost £48 but a Season Pass reduces this down to £40 but also often has extra benefits like cosmetic bonuses and/or early access. A season pass is better for gamers financially. Its not like this content is making up for reductions in content to what's on disc as the content there has remained unchanged and in some cases increased. A full season of DLC in CoD more than doubles the amount of Maps as well as increases the co-op options by a greater margin - often 4x as much. There is no pressure to buy DLC and you can buy the season pass after all the content has been revealed if you want. You don't have to buy at (or even pre) launch. It isn't necessary to get the full experience of the on-disc content but rather adds to it. If CoD suddenly sold the Campaign or co-op mode as DLC I could understand why people may get annoyed. CoD: AW had 3 versions of the game - Standard Edition, Atlas Edition (with Steelbook, Digital extras, book) and Atlas Pro Edition which had the same contents as the Atlas Edition but also added the Season Pass and the price actually made the Season Pass cheaper than the Atlas edition and Season Pass if bought separately. It gives people the choice!

Buying DLC/Season Pass in a Limited/Special Edition can be a bad deal for some. If when you get the game you don't enjoy the MP and the DLC is MP based then it is wasted money but it can also be great value. I bought the Limited Edition of Destiny and that came with a steelbook, artbook, postcards, map and season pass. Even before the final DLC is released, I have still accumulated 1500 hours and no doubt this will increase when House of Wolves is available.

I guess what I am saying is that Season Passes should remain optional. I have no issues with them being offered in 'some' limited editions, but I don't think they should be included in all. In the case of Batman: Arkham Knight, I expect that the price of the Limited Edition version I have pre-ordered would be over £100 and I am not sure I want the DLC. In Arkham City, the only DLC I felt had any 'value' was Harley Quinn's Revenge as the rest was purely cosmetic and challenge maps - which I didn't really play. The DLC isn't necessary to finish the story driven campaign and/or affecting the quantity and quality of the on-disc content. Its purely optional and a Season Pass would be the best financial way to get all extra content. If you don't want all, you can be selective and buy certain packs if you want or none at all - its not going to affect what's on disc. I happily pre-ordered the version of Arkham Knight I did before the announcement of any DLC - in fact I pre-ordered nearly a year ago now. If after I get the game and have seen exactly what the DLC adds, I can if I want buy the Season Pass or individual packs. Same choice I will have with the Witcher 3. Franchises are easier to look at as they have a back catalogue to compare with. If Arkham Knight feels like it has a lot smaller and/or less content than its predecessors, then I can understand why people maybe dismayed by the announcement of its DLC and its cost but I expect the game will be bigger in many ways than Arkham City. Therefore the game itself is potentially better value than City and Asylum were. The value of the DLC itself is difficult to assess as we don't have all the information and probably better to assess after all the content has been released. If it is worth it, then people can still buy the season pass then.

As with all things though, there are good and bad examples of DLC/Season Passes etc. For some the DLC is an unnecessary extra but for others it enhances and prolongs their favourite gaming experience and stops it getting 'stale'. People have a choice and that's the way it should stay.

When you look at what you are buying, you get what they say is in the tin. Nothing else 'should' be included. If you're not happy, don't buy the product.

Everything has more than one value.

There's the value that the maker expects you to pay the product, and the perceived value that the consumer feels is fair for that same product. If the expected price is above the perceived value, people will kick off. If they're happy to pay £32.99 for a Season Pass when they could try a new "Triple-A" game experience for the same money, fair play to them.

I personally think that it's getting ridiculous. I have no problem with paying more than the standard retail price for a game, provided the extra content is worth it. The only "Premium" edition of a game that I ever wanted was BioShock, as it came with a Big Daddy statue, and I ended up getting that as a gift, so yay! I am tempted by the Yoshi's Woolly World Amiibos though...

My problem is that we now live in a world where you can - as was the case with Mortal Kombat X - feasibly require a spreadsheet to work out exactly which special preorder version of the game from which retailer gets you the things that you want. That's just ludicrous. Especially when - again in the case of Mortal Kombat X - all of the bonus stuff from every retailer was included on the disc that you purchased anyway, locked away behind a code. Some retailers have special editions with statues, others have bonus content...some games have multiple special editions available. It's all SO confusing for the lay consumer. The publishers are actively creating a barrier to purchase, in the hope that some people will spend £200 on a game.

Sad thing is that most of the premium editions are available dirt cheap down the line, as they don't sell. A good friend of mine has stacks of figurines and statues from special editions, that he's picked up for £10 a pop new, 10 months after the game has launched.

But the far bigger problem for me, is that development is being started with DLC in mind. Until now, I've never heard anyone mention races through Gotham in Batmobiles. You can drive them, sure, but no races were mentioned (AFAIK.) Now, we've suddenly got races as part of DLC. I'm not a game coder, but as a software developer I can with 99% accuracy state that this means the game has been coded with this expansion in mind (at least a little bit) from an early stage, so that adds to the development time somewhat. And I would be MASSIVELY surprised if these race events weren't at least 70% finished already, meaning that while consumers are getting upset that Batman: Arkham Knight is being delayed time and time and time and time again, at least some of the developers are working on DLC that won't be available at launch.

Get the game out first, THEN worry about the DLC, I say.

I agree Ken. I remember when DLC was an addition for a game that came out some months after release, I assume to rekindle interest in playing a title that may be declining. I personally do not like it when DLC is announced before the game is even out as this smacks of holding back content for more money. The earlier Tiger Woods games were particularly annoying when courses were in one game but excluded from the next, only to be released as DLC.
I wouldn't be surprised to see titles released in future where there is a base price (~£40) and an inflated 'deluxe' price that would include 'extra' content, such as a season pass. I have no issue with this as long as the base game content is not reduced to allow for the additional content to be offered.

@SuperKMx I agree it is confusing when certain retailers have specific bonuses and others have different ones too as is the case with MKX. Its also unfair that these different bonuses are on disc too. I think at most they should be 'downloadable' and cost maybe a couple of £'s so that if you don't pre-order from a specific retailer you can still get them. I never agreed with the different retailer bonuses anyway and think if they have to have pre-order bonuses, they are uniform across all retailers. Often though I tend to go with the cheapest. Amazon for example was £20 cheaper than Game for Destiny's Limited Edition and the only difference was that pre-order bonus Sparrow. I know that you can often pick up some special editions months later at a discount but some games, I find, can be a bit more time sensitive. Those with MP can be more difficult to get into as others have learnt all the maps, tricks etc.

As far as I know, Races were mentioned in Batman although I thought these were tied more to the Riddler Challenges and against time rather than others. There was footage of these in some video months ago with the Batmobile racing in a pipe and even going on the ceiling. In terms of discussing DLC and timing, Batman was due for release in October 2014. I am sure that the game was close to finished. I bet the story, environments, character models etc were finished by that time but maybe they needed time to polish the game and make sure every aspect ran properly throughout. I can't imagine that 'everybody' involved were required to do this. As I said earlier, A studio is made up of various 'parts' so some of these 'parts' could be working on aspects of the DLC, whilst the others are polishing and testing the game.

Its kind of like making Cartoons, the writer begins an episode, then story boarding, whilst voices record the script. Background artists and animators have to finish their work before the editors can finish their part. by the time the Editors start though, the writers have already written the next episode. Its a staggered production with a lot of crossovers and video games are not that different. We know that Arkham itself and things like the Batmobile, Batman and many of the other Characters were finished a year ago (or more) - maybe a few amendments here and there due to problems noticed in testing phase, but that leaves these teams with very little to do other than work on the next phase or game. These are not small teams that do everything and can only work on one thing at a time.

I think this is why some environments may well be on-disc in some games as the background artists have had plenty of time to construct them before the game goes Gold. They may have finished their role in the main game months (if not years in some cases) before. Maybe Arkham has 'race ways' already in place for the DLC but that doesn't mean the actual race is. The area could still be tweaked/patched once the animators and testers get to putting the Batmobile through these areas. A classic example is Destiny's House of Wolves content. We know that the Tower/Light Elevator area on Venus is on the disc, however it looks very different now to how it did then.

To a degree I do agree, that getting a game out first should be the priority before worrying about DLC, but I also think games have quite a short shelf life to a degree too. I know some are classics and replayed time and time again but for many, once these games are finished, they have moved on to the next big thing. Would you buy a DLC pack for something like Fallout 3, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect etc now - Maybe but I bet a lot wouldn't so they need to strike whilst the iron is hot so to speak. Like I said I also think that often, most of the Studio has finished its role long before the game goes Gold and have time to think about the DLC and are still on hand to amend any issues that crop up in the final months. I bet if any issues do crop up, they are the priority over DLC. If you have people play testing the game, looking for glitches, continuity errors etc, then they are unlikely to be the background artists, animators who could be working on DLC but on hand to correct these errors.

I know people get upset by hearing about DLC etc but they are also thinking that the development studio work as a collective 'whole'. They no doubt think that everyone starts work on the project at the same time but you can't work on the speech animation until you have the voice recorded, you can't record the voice until you have a script. You can't even begin any 'computer' work until you've had a concept, a story board etc. The Artbooks (with limited editions etc) often show 'concept art' which comes before the graphic artists get to do their work and can change because of the animators needs or the Play tester problems. In movies, the actors can and often are working on other projects before their movie comes out because the Editors haven't finished their part - the actors don't start working until they have had a script. If you ever see the credits in a game, you will see they are made up of teams like Movies and like these have very different deadlines.

I saw the Batmobile driving through the environment in terms of a mission, but not actual racing. Could be wrong, though...

I very, very much doubt that the story, environments, and character models were finished in October 2014. I can't see a team of that size requiring 9 months just for polishing and testing. Not even close. And no, everybody wouldn't be required for polishing and testing. Of course they wouldn't....USUALLY. But when you're delaying the game time and again, you get as many people working on it as you can to get it finished in time for the next release date during that "crunch" period.

When I've been building software as part of (and managing) teams of 20+ and the release date is being threatened with delays, it's all hands on deck to get the product finished. Certainly, "parts" of the overall team don't get sent off to work on things that would be added after release.

What makes me think that a lot of the game was finished by October was that E3 game play video as well as many others prior to October. Even then they were confident of making that October deadline. We saw a lot of Arkham and of course some of the character models too. Maybe they decided to change elements of the story but I bet a lot of it was finished - of course we will never know for sure.

The video of the Riddler Challenge race (only a snippet) was on the 'Evening the Odds' video released around March 2014 at around the 1.30 mark - and to quote Wiki on this 'Riddler Trophies also feature objectives requiring the Batmobile, such as a timed race in an underground tunnel that uses radar pulses to change parts of the track' as the video shows.

The Witcher 3 has seen a number of delays too - it was originally planned for October 2014 and according to CD Projekt was in essence 'finished' in terms of 'story' but needed more time to polish and ensure continuity and that all things reacted and interacted properly. This also took longer than expected as it was again delayed from February. We have also heard now that they are also intending to release a Season Pass and DLC.

I cannot imagine that these Studios wanted to delay the game for any other reason than to ensure they delivered what they intended. I can't imagine that 'everybody' can get involved in the race to ensure the game meets the standard by deadline day. If they can help and are needed, I bet they are involved and the DLC gets put to one side if and when required. Even if they are not working on DLC at all, doesn't mean the concept of DLC hasn't been discussed and/or considered. In terms of Story based DLC, they can still be writing, story boarding, scripting and voice recording whilst the game developers are working on finishing the game in time.

The delays may not always be determined by the game itself either. Some things like the financial year, other game releases etc may come into play. Both The Witcher 3 and Batman have been delayed until the next financial year for example. The Witcher 3 went gold a few weeks ago but still not due out until mid May. It makes it seem that the game has taken longer to 'polish' too. Maybe a game just misses a certain deadline (like the Christmas season) and the next prime one is the next financial year (April+) so have much longer than is necessary to finish and polish the game to the standard they wanted.

I am playing 'Devils Advocate' to a degree and saying not everything is as Black and White. If a company is planning to release DLC, I can see that announcing it before a game is released can be a good thing too. It shows that they have more of a long term plan for the game and are looking at ways to keep you engaged without getting bored. I would rather know that a Season Pass is available too - When Battlefield 3 announced its form of a Season Pass (Premium) I had already bought the first DLC. I ended up paying more for my DLC than some others because of this. If these companies don't have a plan and then released 4 packs after the main game, they would be accused of money grabbing and asked 'why no Season Pass?' even if they are responding to 'fan' demand. After all the Season Pass is aimed more for the fan than the casual player that may not buy any/a few of the DLC packs to reduce the cost for them. You could wait until the whole season of DLC has been released so you know exactly what the season pass will give you.

Like I said there is no pressure to buy DLC it is optional and most often adds to the experience. Generally it doesn't affect the quantity of on-disc content but adds to it. Like I said things like CoD hasn't seen a reduction in the on-disc content and I would rather buy a season pass than 4 separate DLC packs. There is no reason to buy the Season Pass at launch (either separately or in a limited edition bundle) if you don't want but if you do, it can be cheaper to buy it in a bundle than separately - maybe only a few £'s cheaper but its still cheaper but the risk is you may not like the game or contents of the DLC.

From the little insight I have into the biz, I can say for a fact that most DLC content is planned out and decided on from the start of the project. While some of the bigger publishers/developers can assign special teams (or even smaller studios) to these DLC features, I doubt that's the case with the Arkham series. As far as I'm aware they only have one developing studio working on the game, which means that some people/teams will have had to be moved around to finish the different aspects. If the planning fails and the marginals have been eaten away for one reason or the other, that could delay work should of one team or feature fall behind and it's a feature that they ultimately can't cut.

When did Arkham Knight go gold? Has it gone gold yet? Some people seem to miss this, but a gaming going 'gold' basically means that the game is finished, though not bug-free. Which is where day one patches and things like that enters the equation.

Oh, they were swell. Just...swell..