49% Of Console Gamers Don't Buy DLC

[SelectivelyEvil13]

I can understand what you're saying about the Oblivion DLC and it getting put onto a disc later for cheaper but you gotta understand when you and others buy that DLC, it funds the next one basically. I mean yeah it sucks a bit to be getting it for more but you are essentially saying "GIVE ME MORE" and that's what happens with bethesta titles. I had it happen with Fallout 3, but considering the fun that was had? I'm already repeating myself with New Vegas (a much better game with better DLC)

That I understand and agree on, but I suppose part of it is that in Oblivion's case, the PC version had a separate Shivering Isles physical copy that could be purchased. For clarity's sake, I'll add that I eventually bought Oblivion/Shivering Isles on the PC as well, so I experienced the subtle differences firsthand. If I ever did want to sell or trade-in Oblivion on the 360, I could have additionally sold that extra expansion to get a little bit more back, whereas that DLC will forever burn a whole in my HDD and Live account ha ha! More to the point though, with the separate Shivering Isles disc on the PC, because I had waited long enough, it was actually very reasonable for me to purchase the original Oblivion game and then later the expansion because they both were subject to deflated prices over time, while the SI expansion was still the same cost as DLC on Xbox Live. Even if the physical disc was more for the 360, had one existed, I would have gladly paid that extra amount.

Like you said, in the end it doesn't matter because it was actually worth it for the fun to have been had. I find that what ruins DLC and its reputation in my eyes the most are those who take advantage of the system, like Call of Duty as you mentioned, rather than strive to be the Biowares and Bethesdas out there who provide quality content for the price. Koroem's post with the picture illustrates a lot of the problem right there: While Shivering Isles (to me) was more like that 1999 type of expansion, you have many DLCs that are like small ribbons being cut from the original title and sold later for additional profits.

 

[Firia]

I tend to restrain myself from DLC on games that I know will have a bunch, AND eventually release a collection edition with all the DLC included at the 60 dollar price tag. For those games, I restrain my purchases. Take Fallout, and New Vegas. Or anything by Bioware.

 

[Rainforce]

and Tribunal/Bloodmoon for Morrowind.

this kinda seems like a deja vu to me, but again I need to remember someone that Morrowind was from the time BEFORE dlc was a hit, so those two are considered proper "expansion packs".

also agreeing to all the dlc hate in this thread : D

 

[duchaked]

can't play online multiplayer without buying the DLC? eh whatever
can't play as a certain character without buying the DLC? sure whatever

some games I do love enough to buy DLC for maps and additional levels and skins...but I'm pretty choosy esp since I can buy Arcade titles with the same price and those can be loads more fun than just more of the same

 

[WeAreStevo]

I must say this picture pretty much sums up my entire argument in a flashy and provocative fashion (fancy talk for saying ^THIS^)

OT: I will buy DLC depending on the game/price of DLC. If it's a good ratio of price to content (say new areas/achievements/weapons/levels etc. for 560-800 MSP) then yea, I'll buy it.

However, if the DLC is almost the price of the game (Puzzle Quest I'm looking at you...) then I won't buy it. Fuck that.

For those interested, Puzzle Quest is 800 MSP and the DLC is 700 MSP >_>

 

[Imre Csete]

They don't follow the pricedrop of games, it's cheaper to wait and buy the GOTY/Ultimate/Fiddlesticks/etc. edition. Not to mention you spare yourself from being fed on breadcrumbs for a year or so.

This DLC madness is a sickening trend indeed.

 

[j0frenzy]

As an addendum to price, I often reconsider buying DLC because there is no depreciation. If I went out today, I would spend more money on the DLC for Fallout 3 than I would on the DLC. Same was true with ME2 this past summer. I don't regret purchasing the DLC I do purchase, but it is a little ridiculous and insulting to spend more on added content that often does not mesh well with the story than for the actual game.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

The real flaw with DLC is that it is very likely to fracture your player base. Map packs are a great example of something that is just going to make it so that a new player who bought the game won't be able to play multiplayer with their friends half the time. Some will buy the stuff out of frustration... others will simply never purchase your games again.

When you just had one expansion pack, you had a product that a good percentage of your player base would purchase. Each individual DLC you make is only going to be purchased by a smaller fraction of your player base; while it is less work on your part, it is also less value to your customer (leading to dissatisfaction) and a less unified experience. And if your game is bad without the DLC, then why would I buy the game, let alone the DLC?

Day 1 DLC is obviously a cash grab/gouging, but there certainly is a place for DLC and I don't begrudge the existence of all of it. That being said, I find it a terrible value and have never purchased DLC.

Problematically, though, I DO own DLC simply by purchasing collector's editions/ect.

I have to question whether the DLC model actually makes more money than the expansion pack model, though. I'm very unlikely to purchase an extra quest. Conversely, I did buy the expansion pack for, say, Diablo II, and will buy the ones for Starcraft 2. While admittedly most companies don't give you a whole extra single player campaign from expansion packs ALA NWN or Brood War, expansion packs tend to feel a lot less tacked on and a lot less like a gouge, take long enough to come out that they address some of the weaknesses in core gameplay, and all in all strike me as a much better value.

If the average player only downloads half of a DLC per game on average, you're only making $7.50 per dude. For a $30 expansion pack, if half your players buy it, you're making $15. So unless you have a LOT of people buy multiple DLC from you, it seems like it would be more advantageous to frame it as an expansion pack.

Then again, other games update their content for free in order to attract more players to buy the base game in the first place, simultaneously enriching the experience and their community.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

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.

I...would buy that, if I'm honest. And I'd naively hope they'd make the map packs free, like Bungie or Valve.

Meanwhile at Activision: Kotick is wondering how it benefits him to do that if he doesn't get moar munniez right away.

 

[Snotnarok]

I can understand what you're saying about the Oblivion DLC and it getting put onto a disc later for cheaper but you gotta understand when you and others buy that DLC, it funds the next one basically. I mean yeah it sucks a bit to be getting it for more but you are essentially saying "GIVE ME MORE" and that's what happens with bethesta titles. I had it happen with Fallout 3, but considering the fun that was had? I'm already repeating myself with New Vegas (a much better game with better DLC)

That I understand and agree on, but I suppose part of it is that in Oblivion's case, the PC version had a separate Shivering Isles physical copy that could be purchased. For clarity's sake, I'll add that I eventually bought Oblivion/Shivering Isles on the PC as well, so I experienced the subtle differences firsthand. If I ever did want to sell or trade-in Oblivion on the 360, I could have additionally sold that extra expansion to get a little bit more back, whereas that DLC will forever burn a whole in my HDD and Live account ha ha! More to the point though, with the separate Shivering Isles disc on the PC, because I had waited long enough, it was actually very reasonable for me to purchase the original Oblivion game and then later the expansion because they both were subject to deflated prices over time, while the SI expansion was still the same cost as DLC on Xbox Live. Even if the physical disc was more for the 360, had one existed, I would have gladly paid that extra amount.

Like you said, in the end it doesn't matter because it was actually worth it for the fun to have been had. I find that what ruins DLC and its reputation in my eyes the most are those who take advantage of the system, like Call of Duty as you mentioned, rather than strive to be the Biowares and Bethesdas out there who provide quality content for the price. Koroem's post with the picture illustrates a lot of the problem right there: While Shivering Isles (to me) was more like that 1999 type of expansion, you have many DLCs that are like small ribbons being cut from the original title and sold later for additional profits.

I agree with what you said here, though I do want to point out shivering isles was available on a disc for 360.

However I get what you're talking about it'd be nice to sell the content you cannot play anymore when you sell your DLC. But that's exactly what publishers DON'T want because that means someone will buy your copy used and they make no money off that.

I'm somewhat used to that already being I've been buying a lot more games on PC lately (mostly because my 7th fucking 360 died. I have systems from 1989 that work flawlessly but...nevermind!) so I can't trade my games anyway.

 

[Vault101]

DLC is overpriced crap 99% of the time. The other 1% is shit that should have been included with the game and some clown decided to rip it out and sell it separately to moronic free spenders who can't understand they are being ripped off, taken advantage of, and helping to support a terrible system.

Once again this picture tells the whole story:

hahaha I love that the choped up version of the "game/mona lisa" is an f

as in fuck that shit

anyway whatever side of the argument peopel are on I hate being dissmessed as "whiny" If I have legitamte concerncs over DLC...same goes with the internet thing

51% shows that DLC isnt going anywhere anytime soon

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I wasn't aware that buying DLC was as taboo as this.

 

[Vault101]

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?

Pretty much. I mean, I justified getting the new Deus Ex DLC (for PC, of course, not for console, CHRIST no) because I figured 2-3 hours gametime/15$ is about five bucks an hour, which isn't that bad of a rate seeing that I've paid sixty bucks for less than that rate -_-.

But new guns? Skins? Why? I can understand if it's something like CoD where people will clock in hundreds of hours per month (I know people that only play CoD multiplayer. What a horrible existence) so they drop some money on new maps to play in. But the skins and other promotional crap is just dumb.

Reminds me of the reskins you can buy for Dawn of War II. It's just models, folks.

If they ever do PC I would be interested in one statistic, though: How do the DLC sales compare for game that allow modding and those that do not?

without giving away spoilers is there any difference between the console DLC or the PC DLC? or are you just refering to the game in general

Ive own both..PC ran less than desired so I got it for conole as well to enjoy the visuals

 

[The Wooster]

Could more of a blatant spin be put in the article? I love it how it is just glossed over that half of console gamers DO purchase DLC, and it is used as nothing beyond fodder for moronic anti-DLC hate. The fact that half of the people playing consoles actually BUY DLC seems pretty fucking important to me. But NOOOOOOOO-- the Escapist community generally hates DLC, so let's make the article look like it is bashing DLC!!!

What ever happened to journalistic integrity? This is the reason why people don't take gaming journalism seriously.

More people are buying DLC and it's making a fuck ton of money. I'm really not sure how mentioning that equates into negative spin.

 

[Pandabearparade]

it didn't mention people like me, who's parents won't allow consoles to be hooked up online for fear that they'll get computer viruses. I'm probably just in too small of a minority to register on the study, but still, thats just one more thing preventing DLC

That's among the dumbest things I've heard this week. I don't suppose you can slap your parents with an 'Interwebs for Retards' book, or something?

 

[Pandabearparade]

I'll buy DLC on a game I love (so far, only Dragon Age: Origins and New Vegas), but I do not buy DLC as a rule.

I'll never, -ever- buy an online pass. Or a game new that has one. Besides, Team Fortress 2>most new shooters.

 

[Quaidis]

I don't believe in this DLC people chip on about. It sounds like those 'unlockables' that I use to find already in the game I bought. You know, 'Win the game, unlock Special Bonus Dungeon', or 'You just found the hidden green pig, special guns unlocked!' or even 'You went way out of your way to collect all the gems, Congrads! Here's a puppy!'. People pay for unlockables now? What a waste.

If the developer, a year later, makes enough content to create an entirely new game... Then release a new game?

 

[Don't taze me bro]

I generally don't buy DLC, unless I see the value in it. I bought all of the Borderlands DLC (bar Claptrap's Revolution), but only ever bought one map pack for Call of Duty, the first one for MW2.

But, considering all of the games I own that has DLC available, I have bought DLC for less than 10% of them. I do not see the value for money that has enticed me to part with my money, compared to simply investing in a new game.

I also have to admit, I really disliked how Cod:Blops handled DLC. I did not buy a map pack when they first came out, and started to get kicked off servers as soon as they changed to a map I didn't have. My solution was to simply stop playing Blops and go back to MW2, matchmaking bugbear and all.