this was a great read, this should be communicated to everyone everywhere.

I'm just going to jump in and comment here and say thanks for the kind words checkm and tkyl, because I'm about to get my ass thoroughly kicked for a couple of days.

Well said and completely true. The gaming industry must mutate or die, just like any other business model. Those who struggle to hang on to old ways are in for a world of pain (a la print media). I personally don't get the nerd rage over all of this. In its current form, DLCs and microtransactions are optional. They aren't stopping anyone from playing and enjoying any given title.

Now if and when it becomes mandatory, where publishers release skeleton-games that can only be fleshed out with additional purchases ... Well then I will have to take a good long look at which entities I will be supporting with my consumer dollars.

Also I don't think birthing new revenue streams is the only answer. Digital distribution is no longer an exception to the rule. I don't have exact numbers, but surely there is tremendous cost-savings there. How long before games are *only* available via download?

Couldn't agree more. You think today's fight is bad, wait until this happens. And, I have to admit that I'll be thinking the whole time, "boy, if people had just gotten over themselves 4 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess." Those who will rail and complain the loudest may end up having no one but themselves to blame.

I think how you feel about this really depends on how you view something like the "Warden's Keep" DLC. You, Elysium, seem to feel that it's an optional purchase that will help fund future mid-range games; others, myself among them, feel that "Warden's Keep" is a harbinger of exactly what you describe: "Subscription based services married with microtransactions. Hobbled initial releases where the DLC is not just an optional quest, but key game mechanics. One-time required online authentication that prevents multi-player for used games."

"Warden's Keep" seems like testing the water for these things. Dragon Age is a complete experience without it, but it's hard to escape the suspicion that content that could be sold for extra money on day one could have been included in the original package on day one, as well. Similarly, the one-time-only map codes for Gears of War 2 were a shot at preventing, or at least hobbling, multiplayer for used games. Gamers have almost universally bought into the idea of subscription-based services married with microtransactions in the form of MMO's; even World of WarCraft has added microtransactions, and the reaction here and elsewhere seems to have been either indifference or a good deal of kvetching on the way to the register.

The war is already lost; the ship has sunk. What's happening now is the process of applying business models that have been successful for games like The Sims and Maple Story and Mafia Wars to "hard core" games. In much the same way as music and movies have segregated over time into expensive crowd-pleasers and lower budget, more ambitious efforts, so too will the gaming scene divide into big-budget, nickel-and-dime-you games and buggy, bite-size indie offerings.

Calling Dragon Age a "complete experience" without the DLC is an understatement of staggering proportions. Dragon Age minus the DLC is still a game with so much content that most of us will never experience all of it. This is quite simply the wrong game to use as proof of the coming DLC apocalypse.

I agree with this. The reason why games like like Mirror’s Edge, Dead Space, and Ghostbusters may be going away is because gamers didn't purchase those titles, not because people are not buying enough downloadble Rock Band Tunes. If consumers now begin to show that they are going to support add ons and expansions and etc, EA's not going to go back to risk new IP again, they are simply going to put out MORE add ons and expansions and DLC for already established IP.

Gamers certainly had a chance to change the course of things in the last year or so, but we would have needed to do that by buying the new IP. The fact that we didn't do that is why the industry looks like it is heading in a way that I doubt any gamers like...

So basically you are just saying GG has been right all these years and we just need to listen to everything he says about everything.

I get your concern...but every industry is constantly changing, growing in some areas and shrinking in others. We've probably all had fears about where the industry was heading in years past; I bemoaned the death of storytelling once adventure games and the likes of Planescape died, but things eventually took its place. I bemoaned the (relative) death of RPGs, but the elements of them are so ubiquitous now that almost every game is an RPG in some sense. The only time to truly worry is when the industry isn't changing at all; that usually signifies the cartoonish pause right at the edge of the precipice before plummeting to death.

Also:

Also also:
I'm mostly in favor of the new layout, but is it possible to bring back the writer icons at the top right of the page? I miss reading articles while grappling with the dichotomy of Elysium peering at me with his serene smile while his grickle-grass beard threatens to grate me like parmesan cheese.

This is entirely wrong. For about 20 different reasons.

First of all, just because DLC was complete by the time the game shipped, does not mean that it was done before the game went gold and was shipped to manufacturing. Two very different schedules.

Second of all, as you yourself point out, the game is complete without it. If Warden's Keep was released a few weeks after the game was out, would there be an outrage? If you wouldn't be upset, then perhaps your only problem is that the DLC came out too quickly? Is that really the issue?

And thirdly, Bioware invested in making a complete game and also invested in making this content. Even if the Warden's Keep were completed before DA went gold, why is it that you would expect it to be part of the package? Either a) you think you deserve to get it for free, or b) you think everyone should have to pay for it when they buy the game. I thank them for not forcing b down our throats, and I don't understand the entitlement mentality behind a.

Remember, you are buying a product, not a complete accounting of all the company's efforts over x time. If one team programs two games at the same time and releases both, you don't expect that buying one ought to give you the other for free, do you? Then why, if they create extra content beyond a complete game, do you feel that you deserve that for free?

And it's not like Dragon Age is lacking in content, is it? All the reviews I've seen so far go out of their way to praise Bioware for squeezing so much content into the game. But it's still not enough?

Nice article, Elysium. Just a few points for food for thought (bold is my emphasis):

Do you think that maybe development costs may come down in the future? I admit, that at this point in the current console life cycle, development costs should be as it good as they get. However, with the expectation that the 360 and PS3 have a few more years left in them, will we see less resources needed to develop games?

I've always said that the current price point for games is one of the major hurdles in preventing me from purchasing a game. When you price games at a point where they become impulse buys, then you can expect an increase in sales. I would have not purchased Batman:AA at $69.99; but didn't think twice with it being sold for $39.99.

Maybe a possible way forward is to eliminate the middle man altogether. Forget places like EB Games, and go directly via digital distribution. I think it will take a strong developer/publisher to slash their online prices of games and thumb their nose at the threats from brick and mortar stores about not stocking their games anymore, but it may be worth it. If more money from the sales of games lines the pockets of those that develop it, maybe we can keep getting our Brutal Legends and Dead Spaces in the future.

I have to sorta disagree with you. If you are used to getting a standard set of features in an item for a long time, and they are then suddenly dropped, I think you may be forgiven if you cry foul. Especially if the new version of the item costs more than the previous ones.

You're right that no one is entitled to dedicated servers, 32 vs 32 player maps, or mod support in a game, but to some (very vocal) few, these are features that make the game for them.

I hope that before the model you describe comes into play, developers and publishers sit down and examine both their successes and failures before deciding that subscriptions and micro transactions are the way to go. Not every game has to look as good as Gears 2, be released in the fall of the year, or have a MMO hook to it. Dial down the graphics a notch, polish up the gameplay, and release it during a slow time of the year and maybe things will change. If the Wii and casual gaming market has shown anything, you don't have to sink millions of dollars and man hours into a game to turn a profit.

I've often wondered if the self-indentified "hardcore gamer" is going to cause the death of a certain style of gaming -- mainly the one they love -- by demanding too much and buying too little. That said I'm not sure Day One DLC is going to be the panacea some companies and this article purport it to be.

And a couple of things about Activision. I wonder, if you take out the sales of Modern Warfare 2, how well Activision will really do this holiday season. I suspect that they'd probably be in a similar boat as EA and Take 2 if they didn't have the biggest game franchise ever right now. Every Big Box store I've walked into from Indiana to California this Fall has had pyramids of Guitar and DJ Hero stacked to the ceiling. And Tony Hawk RIDE sure looks like it is being sent to die.

Also Activision did make the right choice when it came to dumping Ghostbusters, Chronicles of Riddick, and Brutal Legend. Sorry. I know. You hate me now. But its true. We don't know the numbers for Brutal Legend but Ghostbusters and Chronicles bombed badly. Chronicles of Riddick was a remake, Ghostbusters just wasn't very good, and Brutal Legend -- which I still love -- also wasn't a terribly great game.

Activision is easy to hate but there should be a certain acknowledgement that they've made some smart business decisions. Outside of buying BioWare EA hasn't shown that sort of business acumen of late. And Take 2's business strategy seems solely based around BioShock 2 for the moment.

Because I was looking for another excuse to post this:

Ha ha

Very interesting article Elysium. Before I start here, I think you already know that I have quite a bit of respect for you both personally and for your insights into the industry. And you have made a lot of valid points in your article which I agree with. There is no doubt that this industry is in major trouble and is going to have to have a paradigm shift or risk melting down. I've been saying since last generation that the industry is heading for another 1984 style crash and was largely laughed at in other places. That said, I really take issue with the attitude you present to customers demanding value for money.

I do not believe supporting day one DLC that is sold to me by in game characters is necessary to fund the next Mirror's Edge. I do not believe having ire towards paying $10 more for a PC version of MW2 that lacks the multiplayer functionality that is integral to the PC experience is an entitlement attitude. I do not believe consumers are to blame for the industry failing because it's the industry that's failing. My company is struggling to find customer growth right now and frankly, is teetering dangerously on the brink. I'm not 100% sure who the fault lies with but it isn't my customers.

I've seen an alarming propagation of the point of view that somehow consumers owe the industry something, almost like we work for them rather than the other way around. No, we are the ones paying them, they are the ones who are supposed to provide the product that we want. If some modern games have unrealistically high budgets that require additional optional content (and I have bought lots of DLC) or a million plus sales to make something profitable, then it wasn't budgeted or planned properly and that's the publisher's fault, not ours. The industry is so caught up in this arms race for technical fidelity that they don't care if they cut off their own limbs to win it. Yes, we as gamers are dazzled by the visuals in Uncharted 2 but are gamers demanding that every game look this good or is the industry demanding that of itself? Outside the gaming press, I never see people complaining that a sequel to a game doesn't look substantially better than a previous installment.

Do you see the "thin-skinned entitlement and monumental naivete" crowd complaining about Torchlight? Sure, some people wish it had multiplayer but most are very happy with it and I haven't heard one podcast or read one post where anyone said they refused to buy it because it lacked multiplayer and that Runic Games owed them that. In the case of MW2, people were mad because IW stripped everything from the game (dedicated servers, lean, banning, mods) that made the previous games so great on the PC. You truly believe the people who supported the previous games don't have a right to be upset about that, especially when being charged a premium for it? Yes, there are people out there who will never be happy and even worse, the people who will steal games because they didn't get what they wanted. But those people exist everywhere and I think it is very unfair of you to throw those of us who feel we have well reasoned and logical arguments in with those people simply because we don't like paying more for less in order to support a failing business model.

I equate this to a far less extreme version of what the RIAA and MPAA are doing. Obviously, this industry isn't going out and suing people for stealing their games. However, the comparison can be made that they are continuing to cling to a business model that isn't working and while some are theoretically trying to evolve it (see EA and Playfish or Ubisoft getting into animation), they are shifting responsibility to consumers to keep their current model sustainable rather than adapt and change. As a consumer, your only responsibility it to demand value for money and to support the products and services you believe in. That's subjective of course and if you believe in buying stuff like Warden's Keep or MW2 on PC, you absolutely should. But it's pretty snarky to fault me for not doing so and saying why. I take issue with being lumped in as someone with an entitlement attitude because I'm being asked to either pay more for less or pay and then pay again because the industry is spending itself into a death spiral and refuses to break out of it because they're terrified of change. It isn't our job to solve the industry's problems, people like Riccitiello and Kotick get paid millions of dollars a year to figure this out. If they can't, then they should be replaced.

I can tell you right now, if the industry ever ends up in the place you theorize, that will be the time I stop playing games.

P.S. Despite being almost broke, I have bought Brutal Legend, Borderlands, Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack In Time, Uncharted 2, Torchlight, Dragon Age, Ballad of Gay Tony (DLC), Forza 3, DiRT 2, have pre-ordered Assassin's Creed 2 and once I can sell a couple of games I want to shed, will probably buy Modern Warfare 2 on 360. This is just since September and isn't counting the tons of other games I've rented in recent months. I bought these titles because I believed in them and I wanted to support the developers. I've done my part and then some.

No blaming Wordy on this one. This is a good example of what happens when I'm running late on the deadline and don't get it once through the wringer.