49% Of Console Gamers Don't Buy DLC

[Rawne1980]

I've never, nor will I ever, buy DLC.

I have DLC on 2 games I own, Fallout 3 and Oblivion, and thats only because I got the GOTY editions for £7.50 each on Amazon.

If I buy a game then the money I pay for that game is the only money I will be paying towards that game.

Say Skyrim is released. I have it pre-ordered so will be spending £30 for the PC version. Thats all I will be spending. I will not be buying DLC for it no matter how much I love the game.

The only way I will get DLC for it is when I see the GOTY edition for around £7 then i'll buy that.

I can afford DLC I just refuse to pay more for a single game than i've already spent. It's just not worth it.

I don't play games to "support developers" and "keep the industry flowing" I play them because they entertain me.

Paying £10 a pop for an extra hour of gameplay is not entertaining.

It's similar to me going to a cafe and ordering a full English breakfast. The plate arrives with an egg, mushrooms, black pudding and some beans and they want me to pay extra for the bacon, toast and sausages. It's just not going to happen.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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 >_>

I'm digging the graphic too. How can something be so hilarious and sad at the same time?
The only thing it leaves out is the non-retailer exclusive pre-order content that's usually involved.

I too will buy DLC when it's a good value (you got a lot with the $10 General Knoxx DLC) but $10 is about the price limit for me for an online impulse buy like that. And that's for a game I really like. I don't think most dlc packs should push $5.
I was amazed that so many people bought the GTA4 dlc: $20 mission packs. For that kind of money, each of them should've added a new island to the game.

 

[Riggnarok]

I wouldn't mind shelling out $10-$20 in DLC.

That is, I wouldn't mind shelling out that money if the games weren't $60. Now, if they were $30 or so, I'd be more then happy to pay for DLC.

 

[Mordwyl]

I already paid $60 for a game, and they want to charge me $10+ for each following addition? To me that feels like cutting portions from the core game just so you charge people more for the REAL full experience.

 

[sheah1]

Well, yeah. I don't have a credit card so I have to buy PSN cards. So I'm going into town to buy theoretical money so that I can come home and wait hours for whatever to download. Hell, most times the wait is longer than the actual DLC, so it doesn't even feel like buying a new game.

 

[tehroc]

Only genre I find DLC acceptable are the music games. That genre is set up to be platforms for DLC. If DLC is to be expected for a game, I'll just wait for the ultimate release. Expansions are more acceptable as there is a certain amount of content that is expected and delivered.

DLC is easily more lucrative venture then the game itself, so we know how the executives will side with.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I already paid $60 for a game, and they want to charge me $10+ for each following addition? To me that feels like cutting portions from the core game just so you charge people more for the REAL full experience.

That's the idea.
From the publisher and developer's perspective, this model allows them to:

1) Hike costs without actually putting a bigger price sticker on the package of the core game
2) Dodge loss from arbitrage (more commonly called "Used Game" sales)
3) DLC is less cost-effective for the customer than buying the core game. Cost:Content ratios based on relative quality and length of gameplay are skewed HEAVILY in favor of the developer/publisher.
In layman's terms: Most DLC is of VERY POOR value.

Consequences:
-The publisher will often put a legal embargo on game modding of any kind (obviously, less relevant for consoles, but just stick with me here) to flex their Natural Monopoly power and to keep amateur mods from competing with theirs. This leads to the price gouging and attempted exploitation you see today (why the fuck would anyone pay 10 bucks for something as superficial as a skin? Well, a big part of it has to do with a natural lack of competition).

-Expansion packs used to give the developer a break by letting them use existing game infrastructure to make a bit of extra cash while providing the customer with an extended experience and continued incentive to use their product.
This in turn, gave rise to modding communities, who didn't step on the publisher's/developer's toes. These mods in turn provided an added incentive for others to jump on board with the original game. (Valve knows this, and utilizes this behavior in Team Fortress 2 today).

However, that collaborative-additive-value cycle is virtually dead, partly because the console manufacturer's are TERRIFIED of losing any sort of control over their customers (it keeps the publishers who make the games satisfied; without them they don't have much business).
In their eyes, you are no longer their valued customers; you're witless cattle and it's their job to see how hard they can milk you before you stop blindly giving.

This is usually where someone posits the "Profit = Justification" copout-argument:
Note that the previous non-DLC model proved that a game company could be IMMENSELY profitable without being totalitarian.

My goal isn't to boycott games or game companies for the sake of spite, but to show why gamers should be more mindful of their purchases. If you want better quality, don't cave into pressure and blindly shell out for DLC. Make them earn your money.

They see you as nothing more than a resource; there's no reason not to treat them the same way.

 

[Angelous Wang]

Microsoft is huge part of the cause of DLC costing to much.

They have there own price polices that they apply to all DLC, so even if a Developer makes a free DLC Microsoft will normally add a cost to it.

Take the Witcher 2 for example, the Developers have claimed all DLC on PC for this game will be forever free (except any major expansions). However DLC on the 360 will not due to Microsoft, even the free PC "Dark Mode" already added is excepted to be 320-560 MS points on release for 360.

Then you have the problem of Sony putting up comparative prices to Microsoft, becuase they have to copy each other on everything ...

 

[go-10]

I bought all DLC for Borderlands... I have never bought any other DLC I might buy Arkham City DLC if its not just Challenge Maps

but yeah overall DLC is just crap or overpriced which is why I don't buy more of it

 

[Alandoril]

I only buy dlc if it's going to add significantly to the gameplay experience. I never buy things like costumes or weapons, unless they are part of a larger bundle.

 

[RollForInitiative]

What most people don't get is that DLC is generally developed during the certification to gold master period, or after the game is finished. If you wanted that as part of the release, you'd have to wait a lot longer for the game.

Not every developer is looking to screw you out of "the full game." Some of us would actually like to improve upon the game once it's out. I'm still a fan of expansion packs, myself, and I genuinely believe that the pricing schemes of DLC still need a lot of shaking down before it'll settle to something really reasonable. I think most DLC is a bit too high right now.

 

[Artemis923]

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:

Nicely put.

Diablo II: Lord of Destruction was 30 bucks, and it gave me more gameplay than all the Borderlands DLC's combined, a whole new chapter, a new boss and new munsters to kill, new items, and two new characters.

I guess these companies like to forget that some of us have been around for awhile.

 

[Catalyst6]

...re: Deus Ex DLC

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

I couldn't tell you, I only have it for PC. However, I would guess that the differences are slim to none, there isn't much point to changing it between platforms for a game like that.

 

[GeorgW]

Meh, the percentage of people that finish games are way lower, and since DLC is a way to extend a game, I see a correlation with this. I guess most people think that the game is enough without DLC.
I almost never buy DLC, partly cuz they're mostly crap, partly cuz I rarely play AAA games; the kind that releases DLC, and partly cuz the few ones I'm interested in are way too expensive.

 

[Daniel_Rosamilia]

I usually don't buy DLC because I don't have money for it, not that the DLC's price is too high.
Although, I am going to EB Games after school and picking up a MSP card for a copy of Bastion and the DLC for Human Revolution.

 

[Eccentric_Jon]

I refuse to buy day 1 DLC (or anything released soon after the game), since it WAS essentially cut from the game to sell separately.

However, if they work on extra content to keep the game's interest up later down the line, it is all down to how good I think the game is.


Plus I get an obscene amount of free games, DLC etc from PS+, so I end up paying for much less than I actually have. ^_^

 

[Eccentric_Jon]

It needs to be the pristine of gaming in order for me to usually invest in DLC.

And usually those kind of games are rare and don't need DLC in the first place. I'm talking Shadow of the Colossus/Persona 4 grade. So yeah, I have no reason to get DLC. Ever.

Borderlands. Red Dead Redemption. Fat Princess. Costume Quest.

All good value, and off the top of my head. I've probably got a few more to add to that list.


Trust me, there are SOME rare gems out there worth the investment


**EDIT: Shivering Isles (Oblivion) needed mentioning**

 

[Eccentric_Jon]

I think I sit with that 32% who think that $60 is already enough for one game.

Us Australians, we pay 100 per game so yeah :\

And Brits pay around £50 for a brand new game (Standard version).
That's $79ish (USD)


America is nice and cheap. =[

 

[ProjectTrinity]

It needs to be the pristine of gaming in order for me to usually invest in DLC.

And usually those kind of games are rare and don't need DLC in the first place. I'm talking Shadow of the Colossus/Persona 4 grade. So yeah, I have no reason to get DLC. Ever.

Borderlands. Red Dead Redemption. Fat Princess. Costume Quest.

All good value, and off the top of my head. I've probably got a few more to add to that list.


Trust me, there are SOME rare gems out there worth the investment


**EDIT: Shivering Isles (Oblivion) needed mentioning**

Red Dead was something I certainly needed to pick up! As soon as I clear the games I currently have, I'm diving into that territory.