From a business perspective I understand limitations on development staff. It takes time to create, test, and market these DLCs. I understand that you need to reassign staff when the main game is completed to work on other games.

However... Let's look at FO3 which was released in Oct 2008 for about $60, there were 5 DLCs released in the next 12 months, each at roughly $10 on XBL. If a consumer bought the game and DLCs at the time they were released they'd spend around $100 - $110. So you've essentially doubled the cost... except you haven't. Some people don't find out about the DLCs, some people don't want to spend the time going back through the game or some of us wait two years and grab everything at 50% off so we get the whole experience at once. Either way you're leaving money on the table.

Now looking at the reassignment of resources to another project doesn't appear to be as fiscally responsible, because you can double the cost of FO3 in 12 months using a limited staff, whereas the reassigned staff get to work on an 18 or 24 month project which isn't producing revenue during that time. At this point you have some staff working on creating DLCs at diminished capacity, and you have some staff working on other titles, also at diminished capacity.

At the end of the day you've limited your potential revenue, and you've made the majority of DLC purchasers wait 12 months.... both of those seem like bad decisions.

My question is why you don't just leave the entire team on the project, and get the DLCs to market in 30 - 45 days? You could package the initial game as a standalone or with DLC access when released and realize the revenue immediately. Either way, you win and so do the consumers.... We basically get two games up front, and you can shut down the FO3 team 12 months earlier than planned so you can bring other titles (FONV) to market 6 - 12 months earlier... Then you can release FONV with it's DLCs so that in a 18 - 24 period you've essentially released 4 games and increased profit and consumer satisfaction.

Just a thought...

Nope.

Haha. Wait, this is serious?

Call me crazy, but considering how long Bethesda has been making games, and the fact that this isn't their first rodeo with the whole dlc thing, I think they know what they're doing.

...I am at a loss here. Wow. Just wow.

Someone must be taking an economics class in college.

no offense but when someone usually has suggestions on websites its usually about game content we want. Not how they should run their business.

I demand a flow chart that visualizes your points.

This... is this a serious post?

If any game company were to market their games and DLC like this, it would actually hurt their bottom line revenue. The way the industry is marketing itself right now actually maximizes returns on investing in a game and ensures the highest ratio of profit to cost by any current business model.

What you're suggesting, OP, is actually anathema to having a business that builds on a successful product and keeps customer interest at a high.

No, I want pie charts. or just PIE!! And CAKE!! Mmmm...cake...

Cake and Pie for EVERYONE!!!





Seriously OP, wat? I personally enjoy getting DLC through out the year. Makes the game fun and exciting. Plus if they do paid day 1 DLC I'd be kind of pissed that it wasn't included in the game in the first place. I hate companies that do that.

Fixed that for ya, and yes. One look at ME3 and Dragon Age 2 and you can see 1st day released dlc is a bad idea.

Your fallout pic guy looks a lot like my character, lol. Minus the mask. I always wore authority glasses.

That might be because it's the canon Courier Six, AKA, the default face.

Beths I'm glad you made the dlc for skyrim, as these dlc addressed fan requests like vampires and now housing, it may not make as much money as some random points out but most fans that keep the company going enjoy these things, obviously beths is not a charity but I'm sure the revenue brought in by these dlc is not trivial either, I'd say you have a happy medium, you give the fans what they want and deserve and get money you need to continue what you love, as your company is successful I don't think you need to change much. Thanks for allowing the game to evolve and giving it time so you can take the loyal (majority) customers into consideration when making new content, as that is the soundest business sense.

Death to day one dlc! I've got my eye on you EA lol

I would pissed if they released a real DLC or expansion whatever like shivering isles on day one..however lil DLC's like hearthfire within one day would be acceptable, and dawnguard within a month, max two would also be acceeptable.

@"spag yetti": Haha, what you said gave me a good laugh

I think Bethesda has a better idea of how to pad their bottom line than you.

Ant this may be my 2000th post, but I'm NOT a Diviner... I wouldn't know the future if it came around and bit me in the butt.

I actually did buy FO3 GotY edition with all the DLC's ... on sale. Yeah me. I would have bought FO-NV GotY, but I can't stop playing Skyrim long enough...

I really don't want the game to come out all bundled up for ... $100. That's a sale few will accept. Buying the game at $60 and then adding DLC's later for $5-$20 is much less painful.

I also think the OP is missing a few points about DLC. They leave a fraction of the original team behind to work on DLC which is why they can often take a very long time to release putting them alone on another project would not really work out, as with adding them to another team would not speed up things much. Leaving that small group behind helps release new things that we the consumer pay for because we want to not because someone forced us to which in turn brings in money for a business which as you stated with the big project in the works is not making money from it. However you miss the point that adding the small group of staff on to the big project won't speed the release up or work up that much. This in turn makes good business sense. Often companies use DLC to add in things that were taken out the original release be it due to getting game released on time or many other reasons. Often DLC fix things or add in things that the fans of a said game want/suggested. Not to mention we get more life out of a game this way. Lets be honest if they were to leave the full team behind to work on expansions DLC etc they are just as well to forget them all and go straight to work on a sequel.

Ah, I didnt know there was a canon one, lol. Now that I think about it, the default nord is the "canon" dovahkiin, the one in the trailer...Lol, I fail.

I'll keep it simple shall I? They (Bethesda) needs to profit over a course of time. If they got all their money at once, once they spend it what's left down the road? Not much... If it were like that then they would have very low budgets down the line. Not to say that this would definitely be the case, but it's the likely outcome.

it doesnt matter when the DLC is released. if someone enjoy's skyrim, they'll buy the DLC no matter how long it takes to make. i personally prefer bethesda's approach with skyrim, rather than releasing the DLC in a short period of time and then being done with the game. the way they've done it, by the time all DLC has been released they should be close to releasing fallout 4/ES 6

Lol @ OP trying to give financial advice to a multi-million dollar company.

Gstaff, I humbly request that you quadruple all current DLC production.