@LoserMike yes u didnt mention complex. you said enslaved is JUST a 3rd person action adventure platformer. so it means its has no tricks to it. its simple. and flower u mentioned, yes, with the least tools they made an innovative game. so they're pros IMO. and innovation doesnt mean something completely new. it means it was once something else, u improve it to a whole new level with your own ideas. the more pure your ideas, the more innovation you will get. batman is a great example. u can see innovation in every part. but batman existed more than 60 years ago. on the other hand look at something like spiderman game. u cant even look at it. i agree with your whole comment because u have your own unique view on this thing -and i respect that- and i have mine, but in the end it comes to how games make us like them. through innovation or anyrhing else.
Publishers are putting more eggs in fewer baskets than ever before, but what does it mean for the industry at large? GameSpot chats with EEDAR's Jesse Divnich to find out.
In 2009, Activision strip-mined the rhythm game market with seven different titles in what had previously been a relevant and phenomenally successful Guitar Hero franchise: Guitar Hero 5, Guitar Hero: Metallica, Guitar Hero: Van Halen, DJ Hero, Guitar Hero: Smash Hits, Guitar Hero On Tour: Modern Hits, and Band Hero. The entire genre suffered as a result, as did Activision's holiday sales quarter.
In response, the publisher pledged to release fewer games and devote more resources to ensure the games that did make it to market were unqualified hits. Activision is by no means the only company taking that approach; Take-Two and THQ have also explicitly adopted the approach of reducing quantity and focusing on higher quality.
Even those who haven't vocally jumped on board that approach are showing signs of a shift. Last year, Namco Bandai games sold nearly 21 million copies across 239 SKUs. For the publisher's current year, it expects to sell roughly the same number of copies, but split between 60 fewer game SKUs.
There appears to be a trend in the industry of publishers to scale back the number of games they make and to pour more time, effort, and money into each one to succeed in what is increasingly a hit-driven industry. So what happens when so many companies adopt the same strategy? What happens when a company invests so much more money and time in a game, but doesn't have a broad portfolio of supporting titles to make up for any shortfalls? To get one industry-watcher's answer to that question, GameSpot recently swapped a series of emails with Electronic Entertainment Design and Research analyst Jesse Divnich.
GameSpot: Given the rush of publishers focusing on fewer and bigger bets, does it stand to reason that there will be some Ishtar-level flops, these publishers don't have enough other titles around to prop up the business, and they'll wind up going under? Will the future game industry be a postapocalyptic hellscape in which only Activision survives while the corpses of its rivals are stacked like cordwood and burned to provide fuel for the Call of Duty fear engine? Or is this just, you know, a phase that will disappear once a few companies have a bad quarter or two?
Jesse Divnich: The traditional console video game market is currently the most understood, tracked, and predictable market in gaming. As markets mature, companies tend to move from throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks to becoming more methodical and precise with their releases. While it may seem that a flop in today's age
"As markets mature, companies tend to move from throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks…"may spell doom for a publisher, the risk/reward mechanics haven't changed. In the yesteryears, a company may have to launch 10 different video games just to realize one or two moderate successes to produce a total portfolio profit. Today, because so much is understood about consumer purchasing habits, the risk of a commercial flop has been greatly reduced allowing for publishers to invest in bigger but fewer titles.
Weapon technology provides a great analogy. Some 60 years ago, a plane had to drop hundreds of bombs to ensure that at least one hit the target; today the same accuracy hit can be achieved with just one.
It is for the same reason why we see this "spaghetti tossing" strategy in new and emerging markets; there just isn't enough information to predict what will succeed. We are beginning to see this same shift in the social gaming markets as companies like Zynga have built up such an impressive internal database on playing habits, they can now shift from a high quantity of risky releases to lower quantity but bigger budgets titles.
GS: But isn't "spaghetti tossing" just a different way of saying "innovation"? Innovation will always be something different. It will always have a risk of failure. I'm trying to further your weapons technology metaphor here, but I can't bring myself to argue, "But think of all the wonderful human suffering we never would have caused without carpet bombing!"
However, I can point to a bunch of spaghetti-covered walls, like the Wii, the DS, first-person shooters on consoles, Guitar Hero, dance games, Facebook games, and so on. All of them were innovative and wound up being hugely successful. They also all broadened the gamer demographic, which I think we can agree is ultimately good for the industry.
JD: Innovation and experimentation do go hand in hand, but there is another side of the coin: technology limitations. The ability to innovate is deeply hindered by the maturity of a technology cycle. The Xbox 360 has been out for nearly six years, and at this point, there simply isn't much innovation left to achieve. I thoroughly believe that the launch of the Kinect and Move, which introduced a new technology cycle, elongated this current generation, and without them, I have no doubt we would have seen the Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 by now. But back to the HD consoles…
"A good example is the Call of Duty Elite service, an innovation I consider the greatest of 2011 for HD games."What innovations are left that wouldn't require the launch of an entirely new console or at least a significant and costly firmware update? A good example is the Call of Duty Elite service, an innovation I consider the greatest of 2011 for HD games. What most people don't know is that Microsoft and Sony had to make significant alterations and updates to their online service in order to run the Elite service, which I am sure came at significant internal costs. I have no doubt that if this was any other game, or any other publisher, neither Microsoft nor Sony would have made those changes, hindering innovation.
If we examine any technology cycle, we tend to see an overwhelming majority of innovations and experimentations occur early on (roughly the first 33 percent of the length of a cycle). But once a market matures and software or technology limitations are reached, their simply isn't any spaghetti left to throw.
GS: Is it bad for the industry when all the big players are using their fancy new weapons technology to throw as little spaghetti at the wall as possible? When the biggest innovation they push for is a new business model for post-release map packs?
JD: I don't believe a risk adverse strategy of focusing on fewer yet proven business models is bad for the industry; it is just the natural result when there isn't a need to take on additional risks (more information) or when there isn't much left to innovate on (technology limitations).
When the next generation of consoles is released, it will open the door to dozens of new technologies, both hardware and software, which will reset the technology cycle and allow publishers to once again experiment with new business models and game features. What will be proven to be successful? Well, unfortunately that spaghetti has yet to be tossed.
@shadow551991 The games I mentioned weren't complexed at all. They were different, which makes them innovative. Where did I mentioned complex in my post? Have you seen Flower? You play as a the wind blowing flower petals around. My view on innovative is something that is different or something that hasn't been done before. I'm sorry to say, but Enslaved is neither one of those things. Good game yes, but unique/innovative... no. Even Gears of War was more unique because of it's covered based shooting, something that only Kill.Switch and Winback did before Gears made it popular. Also, Journey to the West has been made into videogames before. Just that they weren't released in the West. Or they were changed alot like Dragon Ball (originally based on "Journey to the West" until Dragon Ball Z).
@Rocker6 yes. i totally agree. and i donno why they didnt make a good marketing for it. may be ninja theory makes a great game with devil may cry im putting my faith into them after enslaved. that has better marketing and everyone know the franchise.
@LoserMike i dont know about your interests in video games, but sometimes something doesnt have to be complex to be great, sometimes being complex has a diverse effect, makes u not understand the content. u see im a music producer and when someone makes a great tune with the least tools available, and makes u like it, thats professional. and u said enslaved was taken from a chinese story, but can u grab the controller and actually play that story? yes unless its made into a game. i agree the gameplay wasnt innovative but it had more memorable moments than just gameplay. thats enough to be great. im passing the 21st year of my life, how am i supposed to be enjoying something like catherine?
I really hope it's not true, I want games to explore and take risks, no matter how crappy the game turns out. There is always a room for improvement in the next which will blow everyone's mind. So a request to all developers: Alot of us applaud and will take similar risks to buy your games if you guy try something different for change, so please...take risk...that is the only way we can achieve innovation and evolution in videogames.
I will begin by saying I have absolutely nothing against CoD or any title. Don't like it, don't play it! Is that so hard? Every comment section I check is so full of people complayning about CoD that it really makes me wonder if only 12 year brats posts comments these days and that's why I'm gonna use it in my example. Now, that said. This gen of consoles is at it's limit, therefore a new gen is needed. The technology is available and they could be produced within a sellable price? Yes, therefore it will happen. This is an industry and that's how things happen. It's the same with music, movies or games. Blockbusters keep the industry alive and indies go wild. Finding ways to better with less ressources. What worries me most is not how many CoDs are released. Couldn't care less. What worries me is how rare is that a game has quality and potential to become a good franchise. If CoD sell so many copies is because people see value in it. I would rather have a different Dead Space game every year but I'm glad they do not release it as the value I see in each game would logically decrease as I would be pretty sure another one was coming soon. The industry needs good ideas that could be made into good games. Show me a good idea, a different approach, a new game mechanic....whatever it is and I'm sure that whoever buys a CoD will also try it or at least be curious to know more about it. And just to clarify...I'm definetely not talking about motion controllers.
Run, take cover, shoot ten bad guys, cut scene, make a left, shoot 5 bad guys, cut scene, shoot another 3 guys, cut scene, cut scene, explosion, flashback, cut scene, angry bird, cut scene. I truly miss the good old days.
So many beautiful minds here, as am sure there are more in this world. I just wish gaming industry to listen to the large gamers community one day, hell number of new ideas will appear, then innovation will become true if gaming industry will adopt any rich new idea. They need to cycle minds within the gaming industry for innovation to happen, if not, adoption of community's new ideas is a must to keep gaming alive for next years. OH WAIT! gamers are being cycled! some die, some quit, some just don't care and stick to gaming as it is, and new generation is being born whom did not taste the same meal we are talking about ..... no need for innovation then, another people not us have enough time to game and then to think as we do right now .... like someone like me will repeat the me after sometime you know ...... what in god's name am talking about ? who are you people ?!?!?!! and what is this all about ??!
You know, gaming is becoming, or already is, like the movie business. In Hollywood, they won't even make a movie unless they can get a big star, since fans of that star will see that movie to see more of that star. In video games, pubs are making more sequels, because they know fans of that franchise will buy more games in that franchise. So, instead of say, Tom Cruise or George Clooney, it's Uncharted or Gears of War. Also, both in the movie biz and the game biz, innovation really only seems to come from the indies. Big businesses are always about making money, while indies seem to be more about the art, and are more willing to take risks. Which is ironic, since many indie projects in both gaming and movies are funded either in part or entirely by their creators, their "Life savings", and they are actually bigger risks for them then it would be for a company that is already big. Of course, indies also don't have to worry about a board of directors that would get upset if their already large wallets weren't getting larger.
@shadow580 - I'm pretty sure that the next gen consoles will be more than powerful enough to handle an increased framerate. If not, I will be truly disappointed. On a different topic, why is everybody complaining about a lack of innovation? What other kinds of games can be made? The same thing is happening with movies. The pretentious "Oh, I know what happens already" creeps always slam a movie for having a predictable plot. Well? What else can be made? Every story is boiled down to a set storyline. A common denominator does not make a story/movie/game lackluster. Every story that can be told has pretty much been told. It's how we tell them that distinguishes us.
But we don't see any of that! We just see they give new names to old stuff and ask to pay a sub for it.
I prefer AAA games over half-assed $1 Iphone games. I'd rather spend $60 on a great game that will last me years over a $1 that lasts me ten minutes But some people prefer the Iphone games, and I respect that. So, if the gaming industry can keep going like it is now, with a great balance of casual games and actual AAA games, the world will be great. Just as long as some other publisher boots EA and Activision out of this industry.
Also, not many people know but the whole COD: MW3 made by infinity ward and sledgehammer games is a joke. One British game magazine had information on who left and stayed with infinity ward and the staff that stayed can hardly be called a studio. With the exception of one of the writers all the other staff that stayed work in file management and random jobs like that. Not to mention that those staff members are only a tenth of what infinity ward was. MW3 is being made by Sledgehammer and i think the Wii U version or multiplayer I forget which is assigned to Treyarch. Infinity Ward shouldn't even be on the cover.
I think it's an interesting interview. I am kinda worried that publishers will release fewer original IPs. Today it's hard enough bringing out something new because everyone is buying sequels and prequels. Look at this year, the number of sequels is crazy. Now that publishers don't want to release as many games, which ones do you think will make the cut? Games which don't make sales don't have much of a chance. I read a review of Medal of Honor (it isn't a new IP, but it is kind of a start over/ re imagining) and the commentators made the point that the game people were expecting would be the next Medal of Honor, but to have a next MoH it would have to make sales and it didn't. Basically if a new game doesn't make sales however good it is, there is little hope for the franchise to continue.
Spoken like a true businessman, but very insightful observations on the business of gaming. It's perfectly fine that devs and pubs put more efforts into fewer key games; they are just giving gamers what they want. However, while they are raking in the dough from the AAA games, I hope they invest some of that profit in risky but conceptually innovative games. Be philanthropic to the indie scene; that's where I've noticed most of the recent gameplay innovations. Some of them may even become AAA IPs. I agree with Danu_06 that too many games nowadays mistake advances in science and engineering with innovation in gaming. I for one am getting a little tired of hearing about Frostbite 2. At best, these are innovations in technology, not game design. Games like Limbo, Heavy Rain, LBP and Portal take gamers in new, exciting, and sometimes weird directions, and I love them for that. I am also a big fan of the Kinect and the Move and the Wii. I disagree with JD that next generation consoles represent innovation in gaming. I consider the online capability of the 7th gen an innovation of sort, but I didn't see the PS3 or the Xbox360 bringing about particularly innovative games that could not have been achieved on the PS2 or Xbox, in fact, other than improvements in presentation (graphics, etc.), most games on the 7th gen consoles are essentially the same as their 6th gen counterparts, the Wii being the sole exception.
Games just dont sell like they used to. Make a great game, it will just be ignored for the next calladuty. Mark my words. People have already made up their mind to skip the other great games this holiday season so they can buy another calladuty. Sad to be a gamer these days.
Graphic Whores... are taking the industry. I am really sad, the innovation for this people is just full HD and 60 FPS and a "service" that steals your money every year for a couple of maps. Innovation is mix elements in a different way, invention is the creation of something totally new. So, the innovation depends only on the creativity. Thing that is missing nowadays with generic FPS and the death of genres that require creativity like the survival horror.
@GirDraconis the problem with your idea is that a lot of people don't notice the difference in frame rate. Some cannot even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, and if you put motion blur on top of that, things get even harder to tell apart. Of course, most people do notice choppiness or frame rates below 30fps. Also, most games don't require 100fps, let alone 240fps, to be enjoyable. With each added frame, you get less and less out of it simply because a very high degree of smoothness has already been achieved. Why not play all games at 600fps? Too high for you? Also, rendering twice as many frames takes more power. Why not put that power into polygons or effects and make the game look better? Not to mention, not all people have monitors or televisions that can run so fast and the console marked has never been about high end equipment. People buy consoles because they're cheap and the games are fun. Marketing such high fps games could be difficult because many websites (like youtube) don't allow such ridiculous frame rates to be displayed in the first place. Even if that was not the case, potential customers could never see the product properly unless they bought a faster monitor/tv or went into the store itself to see a demo. I do agree with you that frame rate could be better in general, in consoles. Many of the games become hardly playable under certain circumstances, and I would even give up some of the graphics as a trade off.
@Scorchstar O, I apologize then. I thought you was just complaining about activision mass producing games. I just hate reading people complain about activision mass producing games when other companies do it too. For instance saying CoD is released every year and BF is better because its released every 2-3 years. of course they also usually exclude BF bad company as a BF game... But yea, attacking activision alone like that would have made your argument invalid because your simply would have been saying activision makes poor quality games in high quantity and no one else does. but lots of companies do it. which is why I am sorry for miss understanding you. P.S. I was just using madden as an example. So idk why you told me about your backyard football games....
I'd like to see consoles with higher frame rates. I love my 120 Hz LED but games, while looking fantastic in 1080p, don't run any smoother, unlike blu-rays, or even a standard TV show, which look insane at 120 Hz. That would be an innovation. It would change how we view the games. I'm comparing this kind of performance boost to the Gamecube. While the N64 was amazing for its time, it was really slow (anybody that played multiplayer Goldeneye with rocket launchers knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about). Then the Gamecube came out and it was incredibly fast. I always use Super Smash Bros. as my comparison. It was crazy on the N64. But then I played Melee on the GC and could never go back to the 64 because it was just too slow. Boost the console power, get it set up for 1440p (you know it's coming up soon), and get the frame rate up to 120 Hz or maybe even 240 Hz.
Why do people constantly shout "More innovation! More innovation!" As if "innovative" games grow on trees? The reality is in any media or format truly different ideas take time and a little luck to be produced. I played Zelda when it first came out. Trust me for every Zelda and Kid Icarus released back then there were dozens of games that were average, mediocre, or just plain bad. Some of them were innovative, some not. I've seen quite a bit of creativity and innovation in this generation of console gaming. From the online capabilities of EA Sports games (yes they improve over time, I just don't buy one every year so I see the differences) to the fluidity of modern action games. If you would've told 10 years ago me a great BATMAN game would be made I would've laughed in your face because Batman games were a sorry lot before Rocksteady made Arkham Asylum. I'm confident more terrific games are coming in the future no matter the business model, so just play the ones you love along with me.
More games like Deus Ex please. And then we can use the word "innovation", not just a flat out re-skin of the last.
Movies and games now have the same problem - When there's a successful title, all of the mediocre developers try to create a game that is very similar to that title, but different in small ways. Not only are their games still mediocre, but they're now even worse because they use stale mechanics and gameplay. I have found that the successful games all add something to the table. The boring copycat ones that show no imagination and offer nothing new are the ones that flop. These are the titles that throw out boring arena shooters every year that have mediocre graphics, a stolen (or no) story line, and treat their fans as bothersome rather than loyal customers. Developers, take note. As much as people hate EA and Activision, they are innovators. They know how to keep their fanbase happy, and that's why they're so successful. Even their mediocre games are GOTY material compared to the mediocre vanilla shooters that mediocre developers throw out there. People forget these games, though, because they fall into the abyss never to be seen again within a year from when they're released.
@ziproy I think the main problem is some companies do take risks with their games but aren't noticed, because the big titles will always overshadow them. I'm all for innovation, but they need better support. To be fair Microsoft and Sony could probably do more to push the games. That said however I do remember when Sony advertised Heavy Rain on TV - and that game went on to critical acclaim. It wasn't a shooter and it wasn't a sequel, but it was brilliant.
Fewer games is fine by me to be honest.. The only problem we have then however is that every game that comes out is amazing :P Look at the releases coming out from now onwards.. all blumin' amazing! That's not a bad thing, but unfortunately I just won't have the cash to buy them all :| Skyrim, Battlefield and Uncharted will do me until next year. The rest of the games will probably just have to wait until they're a tad cheaper. I'm just looking forward to the day when COD starts to suffer. Not because I dislike the games, but because they need more improvement and changes between the annual releases. It's all very well having the "If it's not broke why try to fix it" approach, but unless new things start to be implemented gamers will start to notice. As have a lot of us on here.
@RPG_Fan_I_Am How does my argument become "Invalid"? The proof of what you wrote afterwards had nothing to do with this. Good on the other companies publishing games every year, quality over quantity. I really do not care for Madden or those games since you can play that in the backyard with your friends... (cough , unless your a loner, cough ) But take Battlefield 3 for example. DICE has been working on the game for three years because they put so much effort into the new EPIC Frostbite 2 Engine. I would KILL to get some of that in my hands. This game will be so much better because of the quality. I am not into CoD anymore. I Used to be a big fan, but now it just seems they are doing it for money. I miss the old guys from Infinity Ward, they were so creative. I like the Single Player campaigns, but Black Ops had a REALLY short one. I wanna play games like The Elder Scrolls again... I'm gonna pre order Skyrim now, I was dying to play it again.
fewer but better games is a good thing IMO i hope that does not make games more expensive we can always have XLA for small cheap games that are trying new ideas just look at toy soldiers
Would we have got games like Demon's/Dark Souls, Portal and Valkyria Chronicles is devs put all their eggs in one basket? Of course not. Yearly CoD, Guitar Hero and others are taking resources away from developing newer and possibly better IPs (which in-turn, will get flogged to death if they are successful). Even AAA titles can turn out terrible (FFXIV for example), so why don't they start trying something new.
This is all cool and interesting,and it makes me happy to understand a little more about the market. I'm glad they try "spaghetti tossing" :P . As a result we get cool new ideas that were thrown out there.Then,when they find out what sticks,they pour more effort into quality in that area. You don't get that kind of work from a casual gaming app. P.S.As my thoughts on CoD would cause a furious fanboy/hater battle that could rupture the fabric of space-time,they shall remain unspoken.
@shadow551991 While there are games like Enslaved,Demon's Souls,Dark Souls,etc,lack of innovation is still a huge problem.Maybe the reason why those great games dont sell too well is lack of strong marketing,what is very important today.Ppl on Gamespot said it was an awesome game,and many probably bought it,but Gamespot doesnt represent every gamer on the planet.Other ppl find games in different ways,by marketting campaings.For example,no one can miss hearing about CoD or BF3,ads can be everywhere,on TV,all over the Internet,even on food,but you wont find Enslaved ads that way.
@shadow551991 Enslaved wasn't an innovated game. It had a unique story but that's about it. Sure, it was a new franchise but it was based off the classic Chinese story "Journey to the West." The gameplay was hardly innovative, it's basically just a 3rd-person action-adventure platformer game. If you want innovative look at downloadable games like Flower or the upcoming Journey. If you want an innovative story look at Catherine.
what? lack of innovation? ive said it before for "Enslaved". that was a true piece of art. was it supported? even i played it last month. and yet everyone said wow what an amazing game but no one bought it! i dont get it!!! we are all to be blamed more or less. when a studio has the courage to do something different and big then confronts our cruelty. and yet we say CoD is #!%&.... at this point we DESERVE cod to understand what greatness means.
and COD haters start all over again. Ur getting really boring. U all hate the game and ull all end up buying it.
I agree with the part how limits of consoles are mostly reached,at least those of Xbox360.PS3 has still some life left in it,though,but both are very old hardware that is at this point only holding gaming back.Kinect and Move sure wont revive them.We need Next Gen now,or we need to start using the capabilities of modern PCs if we want some advancement in gaming(and I dont mean graphics only).Taking some risks would also be welcome,you cant always play it safe.Also,how is Elite an innovation,there are other stats followers,the only difference is,you actually have to pay for Elite.Oh,and not to forget,great article,very informative.
this idiot talks crap,he cant blame his lack of innovations on console age, demon soul multiplayer was super innovative and cud still have been done on the ps2/xbox so stop wit excuses and innovate
@verybadperson Haha, okay so I'll use the spaghetti analogy. If you're going to toss your first spaghetti on the wall, you'll want to make sure it's the best kind of spaghetti. You'll spend more to make sure it is the best kind of spaghetti. Then you realise the wall is pretty gullible, and if you remove all the key ingredients, like big-budget spending on quality elements like story, depth, replay-value, brand life etc., a lot of the spaghetti still sticks. You'll cheap out on the spaghetti and release the same thing year after year until the wall gets smarter. Older generations got some of the best, where the newer generations are being treated to a different standard, which is still a pretty decent standard, all things considered. Back then, you had a lot more convincing left to do. I haven't seen a reduction in quality this generation, but an increase in volume, which makes us think quality's gone down. Still a very young industry, and great things will come of it.
CoD games are an on-rails typical shooter that never innovate anything. there's no freedom in the game which those others you mentioned have(well except for NFS and Madden of course). and the plots could be autogenerated by a modified toaster. I may be over exaggerating, but not by much really
@Scorchstar You know, It's that argument of "There's a new CoD game every year" that makes your argument invalid. I mean plenty of companies do this, not just Activision. Does EA not release a new madden and NFS game every year? Does Square Enix not release some type of FF or Kingdom hearts side game every year? Ubisoft and it's Assassins Creed series.... and do people not buy these games? My point being that saying Activision releasing something once a year doesn't always mean they are the only company farming the market. CoD has some really nice innovations to it, so does AC. Usually FF spin off games are pretty similar but they have new stories so people like them. the main ones are usually pretty different though. As for NFS, I have to say I'm glad EA doesn't do that to BF cause to me, NFS has started sucking. Farming the market isn't always a bad thing. People play these games for months to even a year at a time. Releasing a new game keeps the games fresh and less boring.
yeah they just spend more time making pissy little map packs and charge players 15 dollars a pack, Valve is still my fave developer, all their stuff on pc is free and they make such a broad range of games and innovate different styles. well done to those guys, however activation on the other hand are just producing "jock" games that dont push any boundaries are the most repetitive money stealing games on the planet
" Is it bad for the industry when all the big players are using their fancy new weapons technology to throw as little spaghetti at the wall as possible? When the biggest innovation they push for is a new business model for post-release map packs?" THIS!!!! Activision made 270 MILLION off of DLC ALONE for black ops! Death to DLC whoring!