DLC: A Necessary Evil?

[rasputin0009]

They used to be called expansion packs. And they were worth actually worth the money.

I'm not sure what kicked off the wide-spread abuse of charging for extra content. Could of been Bethesda's Horse Armor. Could even go back as far as The Sims. "What? Maxis has always been a dirty, exploitative developer? No way!" Sorry, Sim City was nothing new.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

there is nothing evil about dlc itself. what matters is the executed.
while crappy overpriced dlc is made that does not make the good dlc that is worth the money there asking "evil".
to claim x is evil as a whole is a overly simplistic and a kinda dumb way of looking at most things in life.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Some DLCs, such as the ones for Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Red Dead Redemption, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3 and especially New Vegas, are masterful masterpieces created with magic and love and they add hours of play in awesome locations complete with neat characters and loot. These are what we generally call "expansion packs" they expand upon already complete stories and give us completely new ones to experience, that is a good thing.

Then we have shit like "Pay three bucks to make your gun orange" or "Give us fifteen dollars and we'll give you three more poorly designed maps" and worse yet "Pay us money and we'll give you the extra character that is really important to the story and the character arc of one of the main companions" (looking at you Mass Effect 3), these are shit and should probably be avoided because they generally make people sad and reinforce negative trends in the industry.

 

[I.Muir]

Id like less dlc and more the expansions they used to do
and I would pay half the price of the original game for a good one like shivering isles for oblivion

 

[sXeth]

Its an interesting way of delivering expansion pack style content without inflating the price to produce retail copies (DLC of this type usually landing after a games been somewhat left behind by the initial audience). That said, its used that way few and far between, with a constant chokehold of reskins/minor perks/etc, or the even worse cases like the Capcom roster locks and the missing Assassin Creed 2 chapters.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

It's not a necessary evil by any stretch of the imagination. It is an evil that is cultivated by the shitty atmosphere surrounding games and their development that produces not-quite-there products that have to be finished after they are released. Basically, DLC is a very easy way to have customers pay more for content, in the sense that virtually all paid DLC ever made for large games has not been equal, on a dollar for dollar basis, to the amount of content you get in the vanilla game. Look at Dark Souls. For the sake of argument, you paid $60 for it. The PTDE DLC is $15. Is it about another quarter of the game? Fuck no. It is one of the better DLCs ever made, and the content is great, but no way is it equal to a quarter of the vanilla game.

There's also the fact that many things in games that we take for granted could easily be cut out as DLC and not impact the quality of the game that much, but appear to be a massive improvement as DLC. For example, can you imagine Dragon's Dogma with no buffing magic? I certainly can, and it wouldn't be a blatant hole in the game. Or Dark Souls without the Path of the Dragon covenant. Half the players don't find it anyway, but it would be the s*** if it was DLC afterwards.

Then there's pay-to-win or games that handicap themselves to mandate purchasing DLC, but all that sort of disingenuous crap is widely despised anyway. Premium ammo in World of Tanks.

Some DLC is done well, even though there are almost universally more expensive than the same amount of content in-game. These basically amount to expansion packs. The only things I hold them to here is that they not be integral to the main game, that they not be available at launch (my opinion in a nutshell: only the vanilla game should be available at launch, any extra content is an effort to make people feel like they're not getting the complete game, which is disingenuous) and that they not be cut from the main game, which can rarely be proved.

I was going to go on for a bit more but who even cares. I've said all I need to.

 

[MysticSlayer]

As far as paid DLC goes, I really only get it if I feel it would add to the experience or if I already love the game and am willing to invest a few extra hours in new content before moving on to another game. Fallout 3, L.A. Noire, and Mass Effect 2&3 have all been games I've been more than willing to pay for DLC with. Consequently, I don't view DLC as an "evil" so much as a tool that can used for good or bad. Most of the time, though, I tend to see it as a way of extending an experience for players who want an extended experience and are willing to further support developers the like in the process.

They used to be called expansion packs. And they were worth actually worth the money.

I'm not sure what kicked off the wide-spread abuse of charging for extra content. Could of been Bethesda's Horse Armor. Could even go back as far as The Sims. "What? Maxis has always been a dirty, exploitative developer? No way!" Sorry, Sim City was nothing new.

Probably due to:
1. More people getting Internet connections so the idea of downloadable content was more plausible.
2. Going off #1, because a lot of people don't want to download massive files the size of your typical expansion pack, you make it smaller and charge less. Yes, some DLC can push the 2GB+ boundary, but they are still comparatively small to what a complete expansion pack would be.
3. It worked better with consoles, as they don't force you to keep changing disks or installing games you may not want to install.
4. It allows a more consistent stream of income for the developers and publishers, as opposed to a few massive bursts on income spread over the course of 2+ years.

Now, I'm not saying that every DLC is justified by this, but if they are done right you can't really complain. Also, a few PC titles still use the traditional expansion packs, but they are generally only on games that are for the more dedicated PC gamers.

 

[Gatx]

I dislike DLC. I'm fine with expansion packs though. There's nothing stopping DLC from becoming like an expansion pack, but DLC has now become a part of the business model of game releases. When a new game is coming out, you KNOW that they're already thinking about DLC. I know there's that justification that it keeps some of the devs working rather than leaving them to find another project, and that DLC is supposed to keep consumers playing discourages used game sales, but to me that's just a bandage over a lot of the underlying problems with game development that are getting ignored.

Also I really, really dislike things like bonus weapons. It kills the immersion a bit when you start a game and you just magically have these nice items from the get go. The degree to which it breaks immersion depends on the game of course.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

DLC can be good but you can't trust publishers not to abuse it. Instead of getting new content attached to a very complete game, you have stuff planned to never be included in the game and just tacked on later because they know you'll buy it.

 

[likalaruku]

If the game doesn't come out with a GOTYE that has all the expansions & DLC on it, I pretend the DLC doesn't exist....Unless it's for Neverwinter Nights. Odds are modders can make something cooler for free anyway.

 

[kypsilon]

Huh, never really considered it before, but yeah, I find DLC less enticing once the 'game proper' has finished. Batman: Arkham City for example, I love to death. One of the best games in my collection. I downloaded the DLC for it with Harley Quinn and, well, it just didn't grab me the same way. I still liked the game and thought the DLC was good, but it wasn't as hard-hitting as the main game.

I like DLC in principle, the idea of getting more for your game is always enticing, especially if you like the game and don't want it to end. But there does seem to be an expiration date for my interest. If they came out with new DLC for Saints Row the Third (a bad example really, but the principle still works) I really wouldn't be interested at this point. Too much time has passed.

 

[Windcaler]

It really depends on the DLC. There are really good DLCs and then there are really bad DLCs. I think DLC can be a good thing but its usually horrible both for the limited content and the price attatched. The fallout 3 and New vegas DLCs were ones done right IMO. It added a lot to the games and were reasonably priced for how much we got. Unfortunately I cant say the same for Skyrims Dawnguard (although I havnt played dragonborn yet).

Bad DLC is pretty much anything from Day 1 or anything that Devs sliced off from the original game like ME3's day 1 dlc.

I dont like the concept of DLC but I dont think its going to go anywhere as long as people buy the bad DLCs. Its cetainly not necessary though. If you want to give a game a good longer life span release modding tools and let the community that plays the game keep it going

 

[bug_of_war]

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.

It's funny, I see it as more annoying when they force me to put in a code for a key to unlock content on the disc rather than day 1 DLC. I figure if it's on the disc, and I have paid for the disc, that damn well better be mine. It's especially annoying because I rarely ever have my Xbox hooked up to my internet as it's just not easily done in my circumstance.

As for Day 1 DLC I really have no problem with it. Many stores force you (in Australia) to pay anywhere from $100-$120 for the pre order content, yet the combined price of the standard edition and downloading off the net is much cheaper. For example, when Mass Effect 3 came out it was $79 for the standard edition and $110 for the collectors edition. at the time I couldn't afford the Collectors edition, so I just paid for the standard edition and started playing. It wasn't until I just finished the Mars mission when I found out that From Ashes DLC (Most argue it is required for full enjoyment, not true but to each their own) was available for (correct me if I'm wrong) $15. Whilst I did not get it till after I finished the game, it was good to know that the content in the edition that was far more expensive was available to me immediately on day 1, hence if I was one of the people whom believed that the From Ashes content was required for maximum enjoyment I was able to get it.

I understand the argument for Day 1 DLC being cut from the main game, that is a legitimate problem that needs to be stopped (See Angry Joe's Metro Last Light rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYSCjGbv3YY ).

 

[lapan]

- Capcom has been especially oblivious in the way they screw over consumers, even arguing that there is no difference between On-Disc DLC locked away and the other kind [http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Capcom-Responds-BBB-Complaints-Distinction-Between-DLC-Disc-Locked-Content-41021.html], with which I actually agree because there isn't that much, just how overtly or covertly you want to screw the people that buy your stuff. They've done this on various games, where the content (usually unlockable characters, moves and outfits) was already on the discs and only required a simple Unlocking procedure, for instance Street Fighter IV [http://beefjack.com/news/street-fighter-iv-dlc-disk/], Marvel vs. Capcom 3 [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/289501/marvel-vs-capcom-3-dlc-already-on-disc/] or Street Fighter X Tekken [http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Street-Fighter-X-Tekken-DLC-Unlock-Guide-Xbox-360-40557.html].

- They even went as far as to actually sell the ending for a game with Asura's Wrath [http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Want-Real-Ending-Asura-Wrath-Cough-Up-6-99-40917.html].

While it doesn't excuse their other DLC practices, Monster Hunter dlc has consistently been free.

Also they kinda shot themselves in the foot with Asuras Wrath, because the game already felt complete without the secret "ending" and I never felt any need to buy the DLC ending

 

[Mad World]

I don't mind DLC. However, I don't like it when developers take advantage of on-disc DLC. In my opinion, DLC should be thought of AFTER a game is released.

 

[scorptatious]

Depends.

Personally, I really like how Fallout: New Vegas handled it's DLC. They all gave some background information about the main game's without it actually being required to get an idea of what's going on.

Plus Skullgirls is going to get some new characters via DLC, which is awesome.

Of course, I usually don't buy the smaller DLC that consists of weapons or extra skins unless they really intrigue me.

Plus looking back, I didn't like how they made it so that a Prothean squadmate of all things was something I had to pay extra for in ME3.

So yeah, I like DLC. But it can be used incorrectly and abused by people.

 

[FreakofNatur]

DLC is all good if used for expansions and vanity goods. I don't want to pay extra to use a cooler gun in the game, but it's fine if the same gun has many looks that can be bought. I'm against buying advantages, be it for single or multiplayer.

Now, digital downloads are really fine, it's a more efficient means of distribution than physical distribution and lets you reach wherever the internet is. It's being abused now for profit as the ease of distribution has allowed companies to separate content which normally takes much more money to release for sale. In the past distribution was the problem which stopped vanity items and additional small items to be sold easily, but now with DLC, well, it's good on the companies that they can earn more money, but unfortunately it's bad for the consumers when we see such things like game mode exclusions or even day 1 DLC that may be considered essential content to the storyline.

Right now DLC is being abused for profit, hence the negative connotations and the general dislike for the term "DLC". EA has made DLC's moniker(Downloaded cash) thus infamous with their day 1 ME3 DLC, which started the wave of questions that DLC was disk-locked content instead of being "true DLC". I hope that DLC stops being singular purchases, like in saint row(for weapons/skins) and more volume with the same quality. I have seen more sequels rather than expansions in the current age of digital distribution(compared to Neverwinter nights, diablo 2) and frankly, the thought of game companies doing so to earn more money makes me unhappy.

Sometimes games cost a lot of money, but game companies should limit their costs instead of chasing after profits. That's why no one does 15,20 dollar expansions anymore, it's just unviable!

 

[4RM3D]

For instance take Borderlands 2. They wanted full price for the game, then they offered a "Season Pass" for half the price of the game and if that wasn't enough they kept adding stuff that suddenly "wasn't part of the Season Pass" afterwards: http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/2013/03/11/next-borderlands-2-playable-class-not-part-of-season-pass/

I don't think Borderlands 2 is all that bad. The game was pretty much finished and it's a big game. Also, if you pre-ordered the game or bought the Special Edition you got the first DLC character for free. All the DLCs add bits and pieces, but none are essential. I didn't get the feeling Gearbox was holding out on us when they released Borderlands 2.

As for the season pass that seems to be a new thing. But games can prosper with constant updates to keep the players busy and explore the game further. Maybe even adding some new mechanics and experimental stuff that didn't find in the original release.

Also, when the season pas was first released Gearbox did mention it was for only 4 DLCs, not for the newest DLC character.