DLC Done Right.

[Liberaliter]

With the advent of online connected consoles becoming more and more commmonplace, so do does the ease of which developers can get new content to gamers. One of the benefits of this has been easy patching for games, when before on the consoles, this wasn't possible.

DLC to has become prominent, for better or worse, with divided opinions. I feel that supporting a game post launch with good high quality DLC which represents value for money is very important and some games benefit greatly from it.

Games such as Fallout 3, Borderlands and GTA 4 are all examples of how I feel DLC should be done. Sizeable chunks of gameplay for a modest price, adding in lots of new content. To me this is how all DLC should be, not just a couple of new maps or a few new vehicles/clothing/weapons.

So what does the Escapist think of DLC itself, and what do you think are examples of DLC done right?

 

[Broady Brio]

I just did a review on GTA: Episodes Of Liberty City on this site.

It's defiantly a good add-on to GTA IV.

 

[TimeLord]

DLC is good, free DLC is better.

But because it is so easy to patch/change a game after release now, I feel games are of poorer starting quality

 

[Liberaliter]

DLC is good, free DLC is better.

But because it is so easy to patch/change a game after release now, I feel games are of poorer starting quality

When I played Morrowind for the original xbox I longed to get the patches PC gamers did, but I agree it may create an attitude where a developer feels it can not worry about certain things, safe in the knowledge that they can be patched post release.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

Oh, may...*Leans back in his rocking chair on his creaky wooden patio*...I remember in my day when those "DLC" were free! They called 'em patches!

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

DLC is amazing. When its not over-priced or for a couple maps.

Take MW2 for example. If they threw in maybe a new gun, or some new attachments, that would have been good. And I know you say that its not the way that you'd like it, but with MW2, its all really just based on guns. Maybe even some new camo for your guns!

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Actually, I'm against Mission Based add-ons, such as Broken Steel. Point Lookout is a fine example of DLC, though.

I like stuff that adds to the main world. I still contend that the Wizard's Tower for Oblivion is the best DLC ever.

 

[Liberaliter]

Oh, may...*Leans back in his rocking chair on his creaky wooden patio*...I remember in my day when those "DLC" were free! They called 'em patches!

Patches are different to DLC and patches are free now and even more widely available.

 

[Nukeforyou]

and GTA 4 are all examples of how I feel DLC should be done.

not quite.. GTA 4 DLC was xbox exclusive for a long time.. thats NOT how dlc should be done

 

[TheFacelessOne]

Oh, may...*Leans back in his rocking chair on his creaky wooden patio*...I remember in my day when those "DLC" were free! They called 'em patches!

Patches are different to DLC and patches are free now and even more widely available.

Point taken, but in Ye' Oldey Days, patches were half DLC. They added content to the game, sort of like the TF2 class updates.

 

[inglioti]

DLC done right is having no DLC at all. Make a full expansion if you want to add content to your game. Those are always worth the price tag because they add 20-40 hours of content for $40, whereas even the best DLC only adds 1-2 hours of content for $10.

the boderlands DLC is pretty chunky, as is the fallout DLC, and the GTA4. I flat out think you're wrong.

 

[Liberaliter]

DLC done right is having no DLC at all. Make a full expansion if you want to add content to your game. Those are always worth the price tag because they add 20-40 hours of content for $40, whereas even the best DLC only adds 1-2 hours of content for $10.

the boderlands DLC is pretty chunky, as is the fallout DLC, and the GTA4. I flat out think you're wrong.

Especially Broken Steel, ten new levels means lots of hours of play.

 

[dmase]

I like Gamestop's approach even though a lot of people have showed apprehension towards it. I was severely pissed that i paid an extra 30 bucks for fallout 3 dlc, so 90 bucks total for fallout3 when at the same time they released a GOTY edition or something that was 60 bucks with everything. I'm willing to pay full price now and not feel slighted.

Does anybody know if only certain devs or producers are participating in this?(late to the party on that question i know)

Oh and while trying to look that up I came across this, http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/03/26/lawsuit-targets-gamestop-over-%E2%80%9Cfree%E2%80%9D-dlc

 

[sephiroth1991]

Metal Gear online DLC added not only new maps but new special characters, new skills, new ways to play with people, unique clothing for characters and new voice commands.

But like somepeople said free DLC is the best

 

[HelixEffect]

I've noticed since the ability to openly patch games on the fly after release games tend to now be released after very little Q&A testing which is lowering the standard of games on the market lately, either that or games rely on DLC to make more of a sizable game unfortunately the developers rarely come through because they're to interested in their next title therefore letting the other one get stale.

A good example of this would be the original L4D for months and months before the release DLC was boasted about saying that they'll be releasing new maps and new guns etc etc. This never happened instead they just released L4D2 at its full price and now L4D1 gathers dust and honestly I don't think I've seen any DLC on the consoles for L4D2 (I could be wrong).

Other games such as Farcry 2 did the same, the game was originally released and it was nothing but repetitive game play a lot of us who were big Farcry fans expected some DLC to freshen up the already stale game however instead of anything substantial we got the 'Diamond' pack which was nothing more than a new gun and a car. Whoopie. I cannot help but feel that the DLC for consoles is a wasted avenue when you have titles on the PC which are released with the dev kit allowing gamers to make their own content. I've now seen hundreds of new weapons in L4D, as well as a game which is 6 years old still running strong thanks to Community Expansion Packs and continual refreshing changes.

Alot of the publishers now only want to make mega bucks, which I can understand and agree with but this is another reason why alot of people feel that PC gaming compared to the consoles is far superior I can get several new maps and even entire scenarios for the aforementioned L4D2, for free and seeing as they're made by players, they generally hit the nail on the head as far as it comes to content and enjoyment.

 

[Liberaliter]

Oh, may...*Leans back in his rocking chair on his creaky wooden patio*...I remember in my day when those "DLC" were free! They called 'em patches!

Patches are different to DLC and patches are free now and even more widely available.

Take Team Fortress 2 for example, though. They've added way more content in free patches since release than any DLC could ever live up to. Depending on the developer, that used to be done for a lot of games. Just as with music and other artistic mediums, however, gaming has become all about the money instead of being about creating a quality product.

True, which is one of the problems of DLC - being charged quite a bit for not much content or games released as incomplete to squeeze more money out of us. But touche, PC gamers have it better in the added content department

 

[Liberaliter]

Oh, may...*Leans back in his rocking chair on his creaky wooden patio*...I remember in my day when those "DLC" were free! They called 'em patches!

Patches are different to DLC and patches are free now and even more widely available.

Point taken, but in Ye' Oldey Days, patches were half DLC. They added content to the game, sort of like the TF2 class updates.

Point taken, PC gamers have it better in that area it seems.

 

[Maverickly]

Oh, may...*Leans back in his rocking chair on his creaky wooden patio*...I remember in my day when those "DLC" were free! They called 'em patches!

Patches are different to DLC and patches are free now and even more widely available.

Point taken, but in Ye' Oldey Days, patches were half DLC. They added content to the game, sort of like the TF2 class updates.

TF2 is DLC done right. The fact that Valve keeps such a strong connection with it's fans shows other devs how to act, in my opinion.

 

[RicoADF]

Oh, may...*Leans back in his rocking chair on his creaky wooden patio*...I remember in my day when those "DLC" were free! They called 'em patches!

Ay, and if they wanted to make extra money they made expansions that added more such as campaigns, new units &/or new factions.
Now THAT's value for money.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

I'm not sure about DLC done right, but multiplayer maps frequently seem to be DLC done wrong. Very wrong. Frequently about £8 ($10) for maybe 3 maps. Which you then can't play in various playlists/game modes without. Halo 3 and GoW2 (Gears, not God) both did that, and it led to me stopping playing them, rather than buying the map packs (lack of money, xbox live connection, and inclination to pay for bits of a game stopped me there)

If you're going to release multiplayer map packs, be like MW2, and make separate playlists for them. Please? [small][sub]Or make them a more reasonable price?[/sub][/small]