D L C

[gavinmcinns]

I'm sitting here, inputting a fucking code for blimp dlc in GTAV. Let me preface the following with this; I think GTAV is a masterpiece unrivaled in the last decade. It's pure ambition is alone enough to keep me playing for hours on end, day after day.

This DLC has tainted my experience. I normally dont give two fucks about DLC; 90% of it is rushed , contrived, and fucking worthless. Now mind you i got this blimp dlc free for preordering (hence free), but I'm sitting here thinking, what if I hadn't preordered? I'd be missing out on a portion of the game forever. FUCK DLC.You've seen what it's done to Bioware and Blizzard. I implore anyone who comes across this to refrain from spending any actual money you may earned with your sweat and tear and perhaps blood on DLC bullshit. I don't blame Rockstar here for being beholden to trends in the industry, if anything the quality of their product essentially neutralizes any negative feelings I have about pay2win and DLC.

I feel like DLC has been such a fucking drag on ambition and quality in the industry as of OCtober 1, 2013. You?

 

[Eve Charm]

Really you should be thankful it was one code.

For saints row 4 for the 360 I had to type in, the online pass, the comic preorder bonus, the presidential preorder bonus, the president pack that was the masks, and an season pass cause why not. 125 characters >.<

 

[hazabaza1]

Some of it's good. Stuff that's post-release and takes criticism and input aboard. Like... Dishono(u)red's chapters or Shivering Isles.

And then there's the pre-release Street Fighter x Tekken disc locked half-roster that takes away development time and effort to charge you for already finished features.

So yeah it varies.

 

[gavinmcinns]

Really you should be thankful it was one code.

For saints row 4 for the 360 I had to type in, the online pass, the comic preorder bonus, the presidential preorder bonus, the president pack that was the masks, and an season pass cause why not. 125 characters >.<

JEsus I was taking it for granted, I should be so lucky. That is one of the major things that turns me off from buying more than a couple games a year. I just hope Dark Souls 2 can be a rock.

 

[lacktheknack]

No, I don't have any issue with it.

If it's worth buying, buy it. If not, don't.

The base game is a complete game, so I never understand "A CHUNK OF IT IS MISSING FOREVER!" That's like complaining that the features in the sequel aren't in the first game, or that a game is bad because a modder modded it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

My only gripe with DLC comes when I have to choose between buying the original game or shelling out for a GOTY edition with DLC included. What do I do, what do I do.

 

[gavinmcinns]

No, I don't have any issue with it.

If it's worth buying, buy it. If not, don't.

The base game is a complete game, so I never understand "A CHUNK OF IT IS MISSING FOREVER!" That's like complaining that the features in the sequel aren't in the first game, or that a game is bad because a modder modded it.

Because time developing DLC is time not spent putting content in the next iteration or depending on how you look at it, the current one. It's simple actually.

 

[lacktheknack]

No, I don't have any issue with it.

If it's worth buying, buy it. If not, don't.

The base game is a complete game, so I never understand "A CHUNK OF IT IS MISSING FOREVER!" That's like complaining that the features in the sequel aren't in the first game, or that a game is bad because a modder modded it.

Because time developing DLC is time not spent putting content in the next iteration or depending on how you look at it, the current one. It's simple actually.

So simple that it's false.

The programmers, artists, etc, have no job during the finalization process, unless they're working on DLC. They also can't work on a sequel until it's been OK'd by the higher-ups.

So between the game going gold and permission for a sequel, DLC is the only job they CAN do (unless they get them working on a different game entirely).

 

[Savagezion]

No, I don't have any issue with it.

If it's worth buying, buy it. If not, don't.

The base game is a complete game, so I never understand "A CHUNK OF IT IS MISSING FOREVER!" That's like complaining that the features in the sequel aren't in the first game, or that a game is bad because a modder modded it.

Because time developing DLC is time not spent putting content in the next iteration or depending on how you look at it, the current one. It's simple actually.

So simple that it's false.

The programmers, artists, etc, have no job during the finalization process, unless they're working on DLC. They also can't work on a sequel until it's been OK'd by the higher-ups.

So between the game going gold and permission for a sequel, DLC is the only job they CAN do (unless they get them working on a different game entirely).

Naw, they used to work on things called expansion packs and I personally rather them do that then essentially make "Stuff Packs" like from the Sims games. Some do, Bethesda does a decent job at it. However, many games throw "stuff" at you and then complain that DLC is only good on Day 1. However, expansion packs could be released a year later and if there is plenty of content, people will be interested. 20 mins of content IS only worth something on Day 1, 10-20 hours of content is worth more even after day 1.

 

[AntiChri5]

No, I don't have any issue with it.

If it's worth buying, buy it. If not, don't.

The base game is a complete game, so I never understand "A CHUNK OF IT IS MISSING FOREVER!" That's like complaining that the features in the sequel aren't in the first game, or that a game is bad because a modder modded it.

Because time developing DLC is time not spent putting content in the next iteration or depending on how you look at it, the current one. It's simple actually.

So simple that it's false.

The programmers, artists, etc, have no job during the finalization process, unless they're working on DLC. They also can't work on a sequel until it's been OK'd by the higher-ups.

So between the game going gold and permission for a sequel, DLC is the only job they CAN do (unless they get them working on a different game entirely).

Not to mention that DLC can serve as an amazing epilouge. Not everything is going to (or even should) get a sequel.

Getting pissed at all DLC because of the shitty DLC out there is really silly.

 

[Ranorak]

Naw, they used to work on things called expansion packs and I personally rather them do that then essentially make "Stuff Packs" like from the Sims games. Some do, Bethesda does a decent job at it. However, many games throw "stuff" at you and then complain that DLC is only good on Day 1. However, expansion packs could be released a year later and if there is plenty of content, people will be interested. 20 mins of content IS only worth something on Day 1, 10-20 hours of content is worth more even after day 1.

And what is the difference between a boxed expansion pack for 20 dollars?
A big DLC like Dragonborn for Skyrim for 20 dollars?
Or 1,00 dollar gimmicy outfits, skins or vanity stuff?

Yes, some publishers abuse it, just like everything else in the world can be abused one way or another.

I have no problem with OPTIONAL day 1 vanity DLC, or OPTIONAL day 1 side quests packs. If the price is right, and the game is fun, I'll decide if I want to spend money on them.

It's not like the company owes you a sequel or an expansion pack to begin with.

Come to think of it, there are so much more "expansion packs" sold as DLC today, than back in the day there were sold in boxes.
The only big expansions I can think of at the time were PC exclusive.

Edit: after posting this, I went through my old pc library and behold what companies I found expansion packs from. That's right:

Bioware and Blizzard.

So, no. I am going to spend my hard earned money on DLC, on expensions, on mission packs and even on extra skins and clothing if I feel like it.

 

[Stephen St.]

DLC is a major issue to modding communities, though. Unlike Expansion packs, which will generally introduce new models, levels and mechanics, DLCs are often just unlocking stuff that is already in the game, or adding simple models.

Those same things can usually be done via mods. So if you have a game with DLC, it will often also not be moddable, or only to a very limited extent. That a significant drawback compared to just expansion packs.

There is also the issue that DLC isn't the type of content you would normally get in an expansion pack. Expansion packs need to actually expand the game in order to get bought. The base game needs to have been good, and the expansion pack needs to offer you things you actually want.

DLC, on the other hand, can often only be an "unlock" of something that, for all intents and purposes, is already part of the base game. This is where selling a game piece by piece comes into the equation. Basically, the problem of DLC is not it's format, it's that the format is used to monetize content that shouldn't be monetized.

 

[krazykidd]

I'm sitting here, inputting a fucking code for blimp dlc in GTAV. Let me preface the following with this; I think GTAV is a masterpiece unrivaled in the last decade. It's pure ambition is alone enough to keep me playing for hours on end, day after day.

This DLC has tainted my experience. I normally dont give two fucks about DLC; 90% of it is rushed , contrived, and fucking worthless. Now mind you i got this blimp dlc free for preordering (hence free), but I'm sitting here thinking, what if I hadn't preordered? I'd be missing out on a portion of the game forever. FUCK DLC.You've seen what it's done to Bioware and Blizzard. I implore anyone who comes across this to refrain from spending any actual money you may earned with your sweat and tear and perhaps blood on DLC bullshit. I don't blame Rockstar here for being beholden to trends in the industry, if anything the quality of their product essentially neutralizes any negative feelings I have about pay2win and DLC.

I feel like DLC has been such a fucking drag on ambition and quality in the industry as of OCtober 1, 2013. You?

You don't have to pre-order the game to get the blimp .

OT: I don't buy DLC , ever . Period. I'll put in the code if it comes with the game ( which i don't preorder), but i refuse to buy any DLC . Dark souls is my favorite game this gen , and i still didn't buy the DLC for it . Even if it's more of a expansion pack than actual DLC , i still refuse to buy it out of principle .

 

[Ranorak]

OT: I don't buy DLC , ever . Period. I'll put in the code if it comes with the game ( which i don't preorder), but i refuse to buy any DLC . Dark souls is my favorite game this gen , and i still didn't buy the DLC for it . Even if it's more of a expansion pack than actual DLC , i still refuse to buy it out of principle .

Can I ask why?
I mean, I understand that you are free to decide what to buy and what not to buy.
In fact, that's my biggest argument FOR the use of DLC.

But what principle is there that stops you from buying expansion pack sized DLC?
Would you also not buy it if it was sold on a disk, in a box, like the expansion packs of old?

I for one am happy that they bring out more content for a game I like, for a reasonable price. In fact, I rather have that instead of a forced sequel and charge full price.

 

[windlenot]

It's difficult to have one clear cut stance for me on DLC. On one hand, I've spent WAY too money on unnecessary, overpriced DLCs, looking at you, Call of Duty and Rock Band, but at the same time, I love for developers to continue supporting their games with new content. Of course the bullshit on-disc DLC is terrible and shameful, but I do understand that it could be a great addition to a game.

 

[SilverBullets000]

Really, it's all about what they're trying to sell.

If they're selling you extra skins, weapons, cheat codes (God forbid), vehicles, or anything else that should be an unlockable for completing the game, then it's just scummy to me. That's stuff we used to get for beating the game, why should we pay for that now?

I don't like DLC in general myself. I do like the idea of a game being supported post-release, but not by putting out as little content as possible at more expensive prices. It's also kind of ridiculous at this point. $60 season passes? Seriously? For a game you're already paying $60 for? I'll pass, thanks.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

Really, it's all about what they're trying to sell.
If they're selling you extra skins, weapons, cheat codes (God forbid), vehicles, or anything else that should be an unlockable for completing the game, then it's just scummy to me. That's stuff we used to get for beating the game, why should we pay for that now?

I don't like DLC in general myself. I do like the idea of a game being supported post-release, but not by putting out as little content as possible at more expensive prices. It's also kind of ridiculous at this point. $60 season passes? Seriously? For a game you're already paying $60 for? I'll pass, thanks.

While it is unfortunate that there are companies that often charge for all the little things that really shouldn't have a price tag on them, I find it unfair to group all DLC in with that bunch (unless of course that wasn't your intention, then disregard the previous statement). There is plenty of DLC that is worth its listed price, and for those I am most certainly happy to pay for.

And $60 season passes? The only season passes I've seen go for $20, and considering the content included in those, I have not regretted buying the ones that I have.

 

[laggyteabag]

As most developers will tell you, once a game has gone gold and the game is sent off for certification the entire workforce has nothing to do, in this time the company tends to begin work on other projects, one of the most common ones is DLC. Also once all of the art assets have been completed, the graphical designers and artists then also have nothing to do, which is why many cosmetic DLC packs and microtransactions are prominent even as soon as the release date of a game.

DLC and Expansion packs are for the most part good for a game and for the developers as it allows a company to add more content or tell another story within that game without having to develop a new engine for a new game, for a small fee for both parties of course.

Sure poor and overpriced DLC is still very prominent, and Im sure that many people will points towards Bethesda and Oblivion's Horse Armour DLC pack, but very good pieces of DLC are still out there such as Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare DLC as well as Oblivion's Shivering Isles expansion.

Day One DLC is something that is rather new in the gaming industry, but it is really only ever used as a pre-order incentive or as an incentive to buy a game new (much like EA's project $10, or online passes), this is basically just a sliver of content that is usually little more than a cosmetic skin, a unique piece of equipment, or a small mission or side quest, this is because it works as a small incentive and has proven to be effective, the content is cheap and quick to make, and the content is also not large or useful enough to punish anyone who didn't meet the requirements.

TL;DR - I think that DLC and expansion packs are good and benefit both the developer and the customer.

 

[gavinmcinns]

Naw, they used to work on things called expansion packs and I personally rather them do that then essentially make "Stuff Packs" like from the Sims games. Some do, Bethesda does a decent job at it. However, many games throw "stuff" at you and then complain that DLC is only good on Day 1. However, expansion packs could be released a year later and if there is plenty of content, people will be interested. 20 mins of content IS only worth something on Day 1, 10-20 hours of content is worth more even after day 1.

And what is the difference between a boxed expansion pack for 20 dollars?
A big DLC like Dragonborn for Skyrim for 20 dollars?
Or 1,00 dollar gimmicy outfits, skins or vanity stuff?

Yes, some publishers abuse it, just like everything else in the world can be abused one way or another.

The problem is that Skyrim's "expansions" are not worth 20$ because the industry has moved steadily towards rushed cash in DLC format expansions. The value of the idea "expansion pack" has degraded to crap over the last 10 years and the new title for that crap is DLC. It's industry standard now thanks to corporate fucks and quite frankly the undiscerning consumer is 10 times more to blame.

It's not like the company owes you a sequel or an expansion pack to begin with.

I have a problem with this line of thought. If they are a game company of course they are going to want to get the most out of their work. You don't just build an engine, make one game, then chuck it out and make a new one. The key is to create something new and interesting within the existing framework. Rockstar pulls this off every single time and every major developer/publisher should sit the fuck up and take note (Bioware/EA. Activision/Blizzard, Ubisoft, SquareEnix). Equally important is having an ever growing team of creative people who run ideas by a fresh minded dictator who picks and chooses ideas and coordinates it into a product. Kick the creatively bankrupt to the curb to make room for fresh perspectives and new talent (firing Helper was the best thing Bioware has done in years managerially, but that isn't saying much).

Come to think of it, there are so much more "expansion packs" sold as DLC today, than back in the day there were sold in boxes.
The only big expansions I can think of at the time were PC exclusive.

Edit: after posting this, I went through my old pc library and behold what companies I found expansion packs from. That's right:

Bioware and Blizzard.

So, no. I am going to spend my hard earned money on DLC, on expensions, on mission packs and even on extra skins and clothing if I feel like it.

Fine but you are contributing to a lessening of the industry imo

 

[gavinmcinns]

Really, it's all about what they're trying to sell.
If they're selling you extra skins, weapons, cheat codes (God forbid), vehicles, or anything else that should be an unlockable for completing the game, then it's just scummy to me. That's stuff we used to get for beating the game, why should we pay for that now?

I don't like DLC in general myself. I do like the idea of a game being supported post-release, but not by putting out as little content as possible at more expensive prices. It's also kind of ridiculous at this point. $60 season passes? Seriously? For a game you're already paying $60 for? I'll pass, thanks.

While it is unfortunate that there are companies that often charge for all the little things that really shouldn't have a price tag on them, I find it unfair to group all DLC in with that bunch (unless of course that wasn't your intention, then disregard the previous statement). There is plenty of DLC that is worth its listed price, and for those I am most certainly happy to pay for.

And $60 season passes? The only season passes I've seen go for $20, and considering the content included in those, I have not regretted buying the ones that I have.

I'm curious what you consider to be good DLC.