I don't know, I guess everyone could sell extra costumes, weapons, and levels, but I'm not convinced that DLC can support the game industry. I found the IGN article that states that only 15% of gamers buy DLC. Granted the sample size was small and the 43% who didn't even know about DLC were mostly either on the Wii or PS2. If you take out that percentage it's still only 27% who bought DLC. Of course that also means the sample size of people who know what DLC is, is also much smaller so the margin of error is quite large. I would guesstimate maybe max 35-40%? Would that be enough you think? It would be interesting to see data from a larger sample size of only HD console owners.

Source: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/105/1059588p1.html

so are you saying their being biased against nintendo because no one at nintendo wanted to talk?

Notice how there isn't any japanese developer there either, now what developer that works with nintendo that isn't japanese? , none!

No, I'm saying that we have all these big shots talking about doom yet nobody thought to ask Nintendo's opinion or point out that Nintendo can produce a 20M seller or 3 a year without spending ridiculous sums of money. Nintendo doesn't have to rely on DLC, online multiplayer subscriptions, game subscriptions, used game codes and most of their games are aimed at multiplayer which Pachter claims should be hurting them.

The program explicitly ignores what Nintendo has been saying for the past 5 years (the $ word) and tries to come up with its own explanation. I'm not saying they are biased, I'm saying they deliberately ignore Nintendo because it wouldn't fit their nonsensical theories. Still, they happily blamed Nintendo for the recent industry decline and implied the cartridge model (featuring only Nintendo cartridges) was damaging the industry. Fable, Farmville, Halo and CoD  get a mention but you'd think Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Mario Kart never existed.

Do any of the doom talking devs have a presence on the DS or Wii?

while i agree with what you stated an 35-40% would be pretty good, i do think that DLC is one of the main reason's that would make it viable for publisher's to keep making money with out the MMO pricing method, that may be popular with some game's but for the majority of them they have trouble, but with DLC the Idea that it's optional purchase is more of an idea situation to the consumer than a "must have payment to play" Now that is not to say that method cannot work , it can it does very well.

But you do get less of resistance for future purchase  from the cunsumer with DLC than a month by Month payment principle.I think in my Opinion as long as the DLC offered is robust enough and priced reasonbly people will more than likely want the content, and you May..notice i said May have a greater chance of purchase by the consumer.

Pachter is very spot on that publisher's want a piece of that continued purchase pie, but I also Think he is very wrong on the way the companies would or should go about doing it. Some companies could indeed make great sales profit, an do very well in that Principle of Profit dynamic, but I think that very few Game's are able to make that grade of "paying on a month by month basis" purchase principle.

where as if you go with the DLC content method, you may not have the most and largest profit principle every month, but if your game keep's getting played even with out offering DLC if you try to add a Month By Month purchase principle you may infact kill off the very game you were trying to make money on.

with DLC optional purchases the people that continued to play your game keep playing but with the option of future content, may be more than willing to purchase more content for the game than completely up and quit , if you decide to start a month by month purchase principle.

I'd say Atlus has been impacted, or at least Atlus USA.  This E3 was pretty startling imo, outside of western XBLA/PSN projects they've basically stopped picking up any 3rd party games and are now only going with Atlus RD1/Sting titles.  And they're not even picking up all those even (Yggdra Unison, Tokyo Mono Harashi, etc).

Odd video.  So many times I was thinking 'Nintendo did/is doing/caused that', and yet, no mention of them.  Well, actually they were briefly mention twice, both times in a negative context.  Just weird.

I wonder if the industry people who have just realized these things in the past year or two realize that they are way behind the times.

Nintendo aren't saints when it comes to game costs. Nintendos strategy pretty much relies on making a game for $10 million and then spending $50 million on marketing. If you think that every other developer should follows those guidelines, then it'd only make the games worse, but more well known among the general public. That's better for businesses, but it's worse for gamers. 

I'd rather games sell on the merits of their qualities than on the size of their marketing campaigns.  That's not realistic, but it's obviously what a lot of people in the industry have been relying on.

IIRC Wii Fit (new IP, new gameplay mechanics, completely new and hardly reachable audience) marketing campaign cost ~$40M (the most expensive Nintendo's marketing campaign ever), while MW2 (old IP, sequel to best-seller, old gameplay mechanics, old and easily reachebale audience) marketing cost $150-160M (overall cost of $200M minus suggested $40-50M to produce). I'm pretty sure Nintendo's marketing as cost saving and efficient as their development, quoting Iwata on that matter: "At the same time, PR efforts with an infinite budget for a marginal increase in sales would be off balance".

Free market is a feedback system, even heavily marketed the game may flop. The best representation of it is ratio of used game sales to new for some meaningful period of time, the higher the number the worse game performs. In other words, games with non-existent legs, which sell most in first week on hype alone, are the ones that sell due to their marketing rather on merits of qualities. Surprisingly enough, Nintendo games usually nothing like that compared to so called 'AAA games'.

Nintendo Marketing is consistent though, Mario Kart Wii was released in April of 2008 and I'm still seeing ads for it in 2010. The same goes for Wii Fit, Wii Fit Plus, Mario Galaxy etc. What I was trying to say in my first post was that the industry should be looking for a cheaper method of selling games and Nintendo aren't exactly the right people to turn to when it comes to low costs. Companies like Activision, Microsoft, EA and Nintendo can push their games with huge marketing campaigns, but not every publisher or developer have the money to do the same. When a game from the huge publishers isn't pushed, then it ends up like Singularity, Xenoblade, Disaster: Day of Crisis, Alan Wake etc.

Low cost ain't absolute measure. If you generate over $2B in revenue from selling game that cost you $40M, you run efficient business. Spend $10M on $10M revenue and you probably need to tweak smth. Granted the relation between costs and revenue isn't direct, probably close to logarithmic, but still Nintendo are one of those guys whom you should ask for advice how to save costs, not those in the video.

I wonder why they didn't ask anyone from these presumably small publishers and developers then? Or anyone from emerging segements of game market since there's the word "reinventing" in the title? Right, they've interviewed Cliffy B. in "reinventing the industry" video =) Ok, GeoW production probably was low-cost compared to such monsters like KZ2 and with better results, still nothing exactly "reinventing". And afaik Rubin is in casual games business nowadays and a big advocate of them too, though again no noticeable success. Why ask him? Some random people in the video with cliched and sometimes faulty opinions. They could have asked me instead and get the same results =)