49% Of Console Gamers Don't Buy DLC

[Epona]

I like the fact that "only online multiplayer" and "only single player" are back to back.

I think the lack of demos/reviews and the pricing are probably the best reasons to skip DLC. Probably privacy, too, but did they mean privacy in terms of "giving your details out to Ex Blah or PSN?"

I smiled at complicated storefront. I don't want to run around telling people they're wrong, but REALLY?

Yeah really, the only game I have purchased DLC for was Dragon Age: Origins. The actual buying part was easy, but getting it installed was a lot more difficult. First the game had to recognize that I purchased the DLC, which it's own servers had a problem with. THEN, the game had to decide to download the DLC and install automatically, it did not seem to allow me to do it manually, which just irked me, because I wanted to have it all installed before I even played the first area of the game. Some of these problems were technical in nature, and strictly on their side, but still made setting up the DLC difficult, and to a non experienced user, I could easily see them viewing it as "complicated"

...and I remember it taking forever to download. When you can download off of Steam at 5.5 Mbps, it is ridiculous for DLC to take 30 min to an hour, I can download 2 full games in that time from Steam.

 

[Domehammer]

I am curious what they took as buying DLC to be 51%. If it also were to say include DLC pre-order people get for free but can be bought by others or game that comes with free DLC code in box then this 51% is skewed. I noticed this year I have gotten a couple games with free DLC codes so if that means I get added to 51% then that makes whole thing just skewed out of proportion.

They specify "purchased."

Though what do they mean by purchased? Specifically purchased when game is bought or if it comes with game does it fall into purchased as it came with game.

 

[Snotnarok]

Most DLC is overpriced for the content you get. Here's some of the dumbest DLC I've seen:

6 new gun skins 6.99!
5 new multiplayer maps 14.99.
New story arc 15.99 (for like 2 hours of gameplay?...)
New playable character 5.99

That's MENTAL
5.99 is 1/10th the price of a new game for a character (or just a skin change), 5 multiplayer maps for 15? That's 1/4th the price of the game in question!! Most games are overpriced to begin with when it's 5 hours of game for 60 bucks but then there's this lackluster DLC with a pricetag comparable to the game cost. Why bother?

Unfortunately, this is what the market will currently bear, so it will continue.

It's pretty insulting honestly, while I don't want to say this is the ONLY thing that's going on it's basically the majority. Mass Effect 2 had some worth while DLC (and some not) as well as Fallout New Vegas.

DLC really is only good if it's available on steam (I hate to sound so bias) but when there's sales that knock DLC from 10-15 dollars to 3-4 dollars you can't argue that. I think I got 2 of the fallout NV DLCs for 4 dollars each.

 

[Jessta]

I don't buy DLC because of a good chunk of those reasons PLUS my internet has a download cap and DLC takes up a HUGE chunk not to mention the space it takes out of my hard drive.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Good. This means that gamers are becoming sensible.

Yes, there are problems with content that gets cut and shunted into DLC to make more money. There are also problems with DLC being priced completely ridiculously.

However, there are also countless examples of DLC that is exactly what it should be - additional content for an already complete game. You pay more money, you get more content. It's precisely the same concept as buying an expansion pack, except you can do it from the comfort of your own home.

When people complain about the very concept of DLC, they come off as entitled idiots who think they deserve things for free. Because there's nothing wrong with the concept. The real problems here are problems that have existed forever: people selling unfinished games, people charging too much for games (if the DLC is more or less necessary to fully enjoy the game), or people misrepresenting games (when the DLC sounds a lot more substantial than it really is).

Stop blaming the concept of DLC for a designer's willingness to nefariously exploit it. If they want to do that, they'll find ways to do it without DLC, as evidenced by the fact that all of the problems of DLC have already existed in other forms.

Blame the fucking terrible designers instead of acting like the people who are using it well are somehow complicit.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Before I moved and lost my Live connection, the only real DLC I got was for games I couldn't put down. I got the Dethklok tracks and some other metal for my Guitar Hero games and I got the Fallout 3 DLC. I was only able to grab one DLC thing for New Vegas though but I'm content with the Fallout 3 stuff. I also got Bring Down the Sky but since my save files use it, I'm no longer able to play as most of my Mass Effect characters offline! Totally unseen, unpredictable dick move.

 

[babinro]

This surprises me quite a bit. I had no idea DLC was this popular. I tend to hear more 'hate' about DLC practices than anything and yet 51 percent still buy it.

I've never seen any figures on it in the past, but I just assumed it was only the 'hardcore' gaming crowd that bought into it. Meaning that the DLC purchase rate would be closer to 15-25 percent.

Personally I seldom buy DLC due to the cost. I'll get it as part of bonus for new purchased games or GOTY versions of games. The only standalone DLC I've bought were about 20 Rock Band songs (which are sold at far to high a price if you ask me). If ever they cut the Rock Band DLC price in half, there's about 50+ songs I'll buy.

 

[JediMB]

I basically buy DLC for BioWare and Bethesda games.

But it's not a rule or anything. I just go for what interests me. I'd totally buy the "Severed" DLC for Dead Space 2... IF EA WOULD JUST RELEASE THE DAMN THING FOR PC!

*coughs*

>_>

I do occasionally get various DLC on Steam sales, though.

(Yes, the poll was for console gamers, but whatever.)

 

[little.09]

to be fair most dlc is fairly shit

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

I buy DLC, but of course it has to be quality I approve of, and it can not already be on the disc, but locked out.

 

[Comando96]

Privacy: 47 per cent
No return policy: 38 per cent
Too expensive: 32 per cent

--------------------------------

The first one excluded as no hoper's.

No return policy is a key one as a lot of people complained about DLC's for example... Fallout: New Vegas's Dead Money. It was shit. All I got was an extra level. Honest Hearts was ok, but the other 2 were great! I want to return the first one. Then again, I have a computer and should be used to it.

The too expensive one is the one I cite with Mass Effect, mostly the 2nd... What in the fuck? I have to buy DLC to get 1 shitty mission per... HOW MUCH?...fuck you. That is not worth the money. I'll watch them on You Tube for the story and just pretend I did them...

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

The only time I have a problem with DLC is when it should have been in the original game as an unlockable but taken out to make more money (and only allowed to be sold at certain vendors). New weapons and skins of any kind as well as characters should never be DLC, NEVER!!! They should be unlockable. As for new levels and maps and expansions, if they were created after the games release or it was being worked on and couldn't make it into the final product, then it's okay. However, DLC pricing is still insanely high. I have only bought it for my favorite games that I replay a lot. Multiplayer DLC is the worst imo, I have never bought any multiplayer DLC; only single player.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

I really don't like DLC. Downloadable games I'm all for it, but dlc better be FUCKING worth it to buy.

Examples: SSF: Arcade edition upgrade, Blazblue 2 upgrade, The F**KING BATMAN, Entirely new story that ISN'T arbitrary.

 

[easternflame]

Never for multiplayer maps, I don't play enough to get my money's worth.
I do enjoy Single-Player DLC. For example Lair of the Shadow Broker, Shivering Isles, Fallout 3 and New vegas DLC, aaaand that's pretty much it, I think... I still have to play knights of the nine before skyrim... 22 days.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Or, if you're feeling positive, 51% of console gamers do buy downloadable content, according to a recent survey.

The survey, done by entertainment research group EEDAR [http://www.eedar.com/], polled HD console owners on their DLC purchases over the past year. Nearly half of the respondents said they had not purchased DLC in 2011, compared to 60% in 2010, and 66% in 2009.

I might as well ask right off the bat: were they surveying only console owners who had Live/PSN? Because I imagine there's still a respectable percentage of gamers who don't play online that might factor into those numbers.

While DLC remains a controversial issues, with DLC detractors arguing that DLC content is often "cut" from a game in order to be sold separately, the numbers indicate acceptance is growing.

I can't remember what game it was with the minuscule download that essentially "activated" several hundred megs worth of content that already existed on the game disc, but that's the only time I really remember it being that transparent.

Besides, from what I've seen, a lot of DLC is cut content...but developers didn't finish the game, then remove it because they figured that they could make some extra cash off it by selling it separately. It's stuff that had to be cut for any number of reasons but was still good stuff, and the devs were able to make sure it didn't just rot on the cutting room floor.

So, DLC naysayers, does that sound about right?

I buy a fair amoutn of DLC, but I can understand why some people don't. Like everything else in the world, some of it's garbage, but some of it's worthwhile. Hell, that's how the games themselves work, too. Successful DLC doesn't just require its content to be good: the game has to be good first.

You know what 51% is? A controlling interest. Yep not going to see the end of DLC anytime soon.

...wait, what? "A controlling interest"? You're dealing with a consumer market, not some sort of voter-controlled initiative. You don't need a majority of a population to buy a commodity for it to be successful.

And I'm not sure where the "end of DLC" talk is coming from. Is the implication that if a majority of gamers don't buy DLC, they can somehow vote it out of existence?

For the record my opinion doesn't count here because I don't have a console,

Mate, you should never let the fact that you're not immediately affected by an issue influence whether or not you can weigh in on it.

however, I'll tend to buy DLC that expands the single player story and avoid equipment/map packs. Of course if my will holds out I'll buy the GOTY when I can. Sometimes I'll even pick up the GOTY for less than the few DLC packs I'm interested in, I've done that for Fallout 3, Dragon Age: Origins and I'll wait until the New Vegas GOTY edition before I buy any DLC for it, and I already own New Vegas.

Makes sense. If you don't mind waiting for it, that's a fine way to get DLC, though a bit less so if you already bought New Vegas, and especially if you bought it close to launch day. If that's the case, you'll probably be losing money by buying the GOTY edition instead of just buying the individual DLC, assuming you plan to sell your current copy.

 

[Sangreal Gothcraft]

I miss the good old days of Expansion packs...you know when you pay 30$ for WHOLE new content.

 

[Phlakes]

It's not that the DLC is too expensive, the prices are generally fine, I'm just broke.

 

[XT inc]

I think the issue is they price dlc in this stupid oblivious bubble that disreguards what is going on around them.

I can pay 14.99 for 5 maps, some remakes, and some that don't get put into general matchmaking, i.e. zombies. Or I could buy a whole game from last year, a brand new indie game, a bundle of indie games, a bunch of old games, etc.

ffs map packs should always be free to keep people into their game and not playing something else, devs get so cocky to think I would pay so much for 20 maps, 20 maps, maybe if there were more at launch I wouldn't get nuke town every five minutes,

Nothing is made in a vaccuum, everything is influenced by what is around it, and DLC needs to grow up and understand there is much MUCH more to buy for 10-15 bucks than a small map pack for a game that is being replaced in 12-16 months after launche.

FUCK CoD could have been a hub game that you just goto different sections to play cold war, or modern, or ww2.