DLC: A Necessary Evil?

[HoboToben]

Hello, my fellow gamers.

It's happened to all of us. You complete a game that has been draining your time for the last 2 months. It's all over. You feel deflated, like you could never experience the same rush as being fully immersed in one of the greatest storytelling devices ever.

Then, from out of nowhere:

'NEW ADD ON DLC AVAILABLE FOR HOG KNIGHTS IV. NEW AREAS, NEW MONSTERS, NEW WEAPONS. It's time to Hog Wild.....' *Screeching guitar solo*

You literally faint and, before you know it, you've shelled out 15 quid to buy some DLC. And you're back in the game...But, it's not the same. The areas are awesome. The Weapons are cool. But...it's just not the same.

But, as time goes on, you realize you become complacent. The DLC becomes Map Packs, Skins and Avatar Items. But you're still paying for it. Because, maybe you'll re-live the magic you used to have in the old days.

So, my question to you, as someone who has brought full price DLC, through sheer wonderment of a unique story (I'm looking at you, Fallout 3) Is DLC a good thing? Does it add to the game as a whole, or is it another way of sapping funds from your wallet and you're just stupid enough to buy into it.

Stay frosty!

 

[4RM3D]

Welcome to The Escapist!

DLCs can be used and abused by the developers. It is tempting to squeeze out a few extra bucks.

There are many different DLCs, ranging from only adding 1 weapon to adding a whole new expansion to the game. Nowadays big expansions are rare and most DLCs are fairly small. But the price is also less than that of a 'normal' expansion.

Another way to look at DLCs is DLCs that are mandatory and DLCs that are optional. Now, no one is forcing you to buy DLCs, so it isn't mandatory, technically. But some DLCs tend to add vital pieces of story or other things, like Mass Effect. If these DLCs happen to be released near the launch of the game, people tend to complain because the developers didn't include it in the original game.

Finally there are those pesky pre-order DLCs. Shop X that has a different DLC bonus than Shop Y. Those are the most annoying.

If no cuts are made to the original game and DLCs get released later on (e.g. Borderlands 2), I am fine with it. Or if the DLC is just cosmetic or has a very little impact, I am fine with it also. Because then I can just ignore it, unless it's very cheap.

 

[Little Gray]

DLC is fucking awesome. Its more of something that I am already enjoying to a game and they are always chump change for them. Best of all if you dont like them they you dont have to buy them.

 

[blackdwarf]

Depends how it is handled. If it is clear that the content is cut from the game, only for the purpose to sell it again, then we are just talking about a shady money grab. I just can't stand day 1 DLC, because they clearly made the choice to cut that content, even though it is on the disc. Exception being DLC from which everyone gets the code with a newly purchased game, because that is just to make a better product compared to the used one.

Every DLC that is in fact content on disc behind a lock is also bad. (SFxTK why?). why should I pay for content on the disc again? even though you made no extra effort?

The best DLC are the one the consider as expansions of the old days, were they needed a new disc to sell it. It is content made after release which is their to extend the game, not add some meaningless additions like items and skins. Although those do have a right to exist.

 

[lRookiel]

DLC is fine, I just don't want it to be withheld as day one dlc so the publisher makes more money.

I do prefer actual expansion packs to DLC, shame they aren't really around anymore

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

DLC in of itself is not evil, just like any other technique used in game making/design just how it is used. Back in the 90's before high-speed internet we had expansion packs, a method to get patches and new content out after a game was released. Doing it like this ment you have to print the content to a disc and ship it in stores most of the time(Some games give you a splash screen with order information), meaning you had to make the content really worth while for a gamer to buy.

Now we have high speed internet and it's easier to send out the content to gamers, and more wide spread. The problem is some devs publish DLC that really doesn't seem worth while, and compounded even more knowing half of the content is on the disc. It's fine of content was downloaded from the net, but annoying knowing that the content is on the disc or cart leaving the feeling that it is held hostage unless you fork over more money to release the content that was on the piece of plastic you paid for. It's like if you bought a car and the cupholders where locked and you had to pay extra to use it, it's not needed to enjoy the car but you still can feel cheated knowing the cupholders are in the car with just a key blocking your access.

But the key thing is you don't need the DLC to enjoy the final product, I finished Mass Effect 2 again and barely played any DLC outside of the extra character stuff. A famous DLC from Soul Caliber 4 where Yoda/Vader were locked in the disc wasn't needed at all to play the game, you just felt cheated you needed 5 bucks to play as them even though they were on the disc and playable. And you aren't even forced to buy the DLC, not buying it won't cause your game to stop working or something along those lines.

 

[aba1]

I don't mind DLC if it isn't abused the problem is that it is abused constantly by companies. I did the math for DLC characters in fighting games specifically Injustice. If we assume that the characters make up about 1/3 of a games overall costs and games cost about $60 then the entire roster is worth roughly $20 for 24 characters. That breaks down to about 83 cents per character yet they charge $5 a pop which is insanely inflated. $5 should buy you 5 almost 6 characters not 1 and a lot of the time costumes will end up costing you a couple bucks when they should be near a quarter(25cents).

I don't mind what DLC bring to the table but I think at the end of the day it hurts gaming more than it helps because it encourages developers to do the bare minimum for the game itself and charge out the ass one DLC to make shit tons of money on people who have no impulse control with their wallets.

 

[x0ny]

Really depends on cost of DLC, and what I'm getting in the DLC. 15GBP (22.5USD) for a couple multiplayer maps never does it for me. The only DLC I bought were GTA4's Ballad of Gay Tony, and two Fallout 3 expansions.

I buy alot of characters on league of legends, spent about 90GBP on champtions and skins in 3 months. But I only buy things when they're on sale (50% off), so they seem worth it to me. The usual price tag is just too much.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

It is my belief that gaming shouldn't be monetized past its initial purchase unless it is something subscription based or substantially additive. Hence, I don't like DLC unless it's a significant amount of content (resembling the ancient expansion packs that people here have mentioned).

Plus it makes things complicated with the disc locked content, as I also believe that when you buy a game, you own everything on the disc.

Hell, they're even starting pre-order content where you get something at the beginning of the game when you would obtain it IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.

I buy alot of characters on league of legends, spent about 90GBP on champtions and skins in 3 months. But I only buy things when they're on sale (50% off), so they seem worth it to me. The usual price tag is just too much.

Additionally, League of Legends is free to play. So spending money on the game is just a bonus.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

I love the idea of DLC, I simply hate the way it is being used in today's market. Developers want you to buy season passes for DLC that might become available somewhere down the line before you even buy the game. It's too much.

 

[Souplex]

I think we've overall become comfortable with the idea of DLC so long as it wasn't something that was cut from the main release.
I do think it's a tad more expensive than it should be though.

 

[TehCookie]

I don't see DLC is evil, but how the companies milk it is evil. If DLC was digital expansion packs all would be fine and swell but when companies cut out parts of the game, make crap to sell like color pallets or a single gun and just generally overprice it DLC becomes evil.

 

[Robot Number V]

Does it add to the game as a whole, or is it another way of sapping funds from your wallet and you're just stupid enough to buy into it.

Yes. Both of those things are correct.

There's something about your post I'm not really understanding. First, you described some legitimately awesome DLC (let's say it was ME2's "Lair of the Shadow Broker", for the sake of argument) and then you went on to describe shittier DLC, like horse armor, map packs, or avatar items. The thing I'm not getting is that you seem to have decided these two things are entirely equal, on the basis of both of them being DLC. Obviously that makes no sense. SOME DLC is just there to leech your wallet, but on the other hand, some it is fucking awesome and totally worth your money. The quality of horse armor does not effect the quality of "Lair of the Shadow Broker".

So...No, the concept of DLC itself is not "evil". The concept can be abused, and obviously lots of DLC didn't really have to be made. But that doesn't somehow make GOOD DLC a bad idea as well.

 

[AntiChri5]

There is nothing necessary or evil about DLC.

It's additional content at an additional price, simple.

Think the content is worth the price, buy it. Think the content isn't worth the price, wait for it to go down in price or simply never buy it.

Why do people have to make things so complicated?

 

[idarkphoenixi]

DLC simply existing is fine and if used legitimately it can extend a games enjoyability and replay value by opening up whole new worlds (see: Shivering Iles and GTA:The Ballad of Gay Tony)

The problem is that most of the time it's NOT used legitimately. Content is constantly being sliced out during production in the hopes of making an extra buck. Instead of something a team works on way after a game has been released just to try keep the players coming back for more it has simply become part of the development cycle; with DLC being planned months in advance, long before the original game is even released.

For some more recent examples of DLC abuse take a look at Metro and Rome II. Metro is selling a fucking difficulty setting of all things as Day 1 DLC, something they even say by their own admission is the way the game is supposed to be played.

And what's Total War doing? Selling 3 factions as Day 1 DLC. The game isn't even to be released for another 5 months or so! And don't tell me they worked on it after the game was finished because there's no way in hell they HAPPENED to ignore Sparta and Athens during main production.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

There's an aspect of the explosion of DLC that I thought about recently. Console piracy. Yes, it is a thing and it is very prevalent and easy. The caveat is that you need to have your system disconnected from the Internet when playing your pirated game, so that your console doesn't get banned. DLC, by it's very nature, requires you to be online to retrieve it. So if DLC is good enough, it's either an incentive to have a console pirate buy a legitimate copy for the DLC, or a trap to get someone's console banned.

DLC has the ability to be evil, but it is by no means necessary. Even at the best of times, though, the "gameplay to dollar" ratio is rather shit when you consider a $15 3-4 hour DLC for a $60 40-100+ hour game. Also, DLC is frequently contracted out, so it's not easy to anticipate that the DLC will be of similar quality to the base game.

I'll buy DLC if I've done my research and the additional gameplay is worth the money, or if I want to support the dev. I will never buy on-disc DLC, pre-order DLC, season passes, or online passes. The fact that there was an "actual ending" DLC for the Prince of Persia reboot pissed me off to end, as well.

 

[Something Amyss]

The title seems to have nothing to do with the thread.

So I'll say it's not a necessary evil and move on to the rest.

DLC is basically like the game itself. It can be good, bad, or something in between. I don't mind buying DLC if it meets my expectations (which are flexible), and I won't buy DLC that doesn't meet it. A lot of DLC seems like a pointless cash cow, but then, so do a lot of games.

I don't like things like features removed, or skin packs, but if it's something that adds a substantial amount of gameplay or fun, I'm all for it.