DLC: Have our standards slipped?

[secretsantaone]

Now I never really got on with DLC. £40/$60 is already way too much for a game, let alone one with intended content cut out. To quote a tired example, Valve constantly release new weapons, maps, items and gamemodes for all their games for the grand price of nothing and still manage to turn a profit. Most other companies seem to just release maps or an extra location but charge exorbitant rates. Has it just become the norm to spend money on features that Should really have been in the game to start with?

Remember the days when expansion packs were the way forward? As in, real changes to the game made months after release instead of just a few extras a couple of weeks later? Zero Hour, for Command and Conquer: Generals, added 3x as many generals, a ton of new maps, a new generals challenge game mode and loads of new units and buildings. This was sold for not much more than we're paying for DLC now. Another example would be the Special Forces pack for BF2, adding weapons, maps, new items, new factions and a totally different style of play.

So have our standards slipped in what we find acceptable for additional content?

 

[BolognaBaloney]

Most likely, since we let them give us less content, they will.

 

[Bato]

The only DLC I have ever liked, was Borderland's Zombie Island. It was cheap, and I loved it.
Most DLC has little to no content past a new trinket or two.
Or gives a good 5-10 minutes of extra gameplay.

 

[Batfred]

The only DLC I get is free or extra maps on MW2 for £5-£8. I can live with that. Everything else is pointless.

 

[Kajin]

You guys are forgetting that the game industry is a business first and foremost. As long as they can turn a profit doing it, they'll do it. If you enjoy playing games than you should just suck it up or find another damn hobby to enjoy. I hear good things about basketball.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

As long as they make the DLC after the game comes out, like the stuff for MW2, but some games have pay-for DLC a week or two after the game comes out? Fuck that.

 

[Bato]

You guys are forgetting that the game industry is a business first and foremost. As long as they can turn a profit doing it, they'll do it. If you enjoy playing games than you should just suck it up or find another damn hobby to enjoy. I hear good things about basketball.

Or we could keep playing games, and vent our feelings on nearly no content DLC packages on the interwebs.

Sure people will buy a map, or a gun, or 5 minutes of story for $6. I hardly see it worth it, except for a rare few packages.
I just won't buy DLC, and keep playin' me games.

 

[shadow skill]

You guys are forgetting that the game industry is a business first and foremost. As long as they can turn a profit doing it, they'll do it. If you enjoy playing games than you should just suck it up or find another damn hobby to enjoy. I hear good things about basketball.

Or you could do the thing that actually matters and not purchase the DLC in the first place. These corporations exist because we pay them, not the other way around. Charging for stuff is fine, but the kind of stunts that we are seeing here, and believe you me they are stunts, would not fly if we were talking about movies or music or books. You think the movie producers couldn't give you 3/4 of a movie and then charge you five dollars for the other 1/4? Do you really believe that cannot be done? The only reason it is not done is because people wouldn't stand for it.

 

[Telperion]

I generally don't buy DLC - either I get it for free with a new game, or it's something that my favorite game review magazine is saying I really should buy. Been like that ever since Oblivion, and I don't see my habits changing. Most DLC is mediocre or crap. Just look at Fallout 3 DLC: The Pitt was the only one worth my money.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

You guys are forgetting that the game industry is a business first and foremost. As long as they can turn a profit doing it, they'll do it. If you enjoy playing games than you should just suck it up or find another damn hobby to enjoy. I hear good things about basketball.

So what if gaming is a business? For most of us it's a hobby, not a business. We have no reason to care how much money they get as long as they make any profit. I want to be buying DLCs because they actually add to mu hobby and are worth the money, not because the company "needs to make money" - I'm not here for that. And sadly, there are few DLCs that are worth it and this trend is going out of control. Does it bother you that someone has an opinion about that?

 

[Kajin]

You guys are forgetting that the game industry is a business first and foremost. As long as they can turn a profit doing it, they'll do it. If you enjoy playing games than you should just suck it up or find another damn hobby to enjoy. I hear good things about basketball.

Or you could do the thing that actually matters and not purchase the DLC in the first place. These corporations exist because we pay them, not the other way around. Charging for stuff is fine, but the kind of stunts that we are seeing here, and believe you me they are stunts, would not fly if we were talking about movies or music or books. You think the movie producers couldn't give you 3/4 of a movie and then charge you five dollars for the other 1/4? Do you really believe that cannot be done? The only reason it is not done is because people wouldn't stand for it.

No, people wouldn't stand for it. But that's the movies. The games industry is an entirely different beast, though. We wouldn't tolerate buying the last fourth of the movie in just the same way we wouldn't buy the last fourth of the game. But you aren't buying the last fourth of the game. You're buying additional content that makes the game better. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't like it enough to boycott it or, god forbid, complain about it on the internet, then maybe gaming is an unsuitable form of entertainment medium for you.

 

[Kajin]

And sadly, there are few DLCs that are worth it and this trend is going out of control. Does it bother you that someone has an opinion about that?

Not really. It's entirely up to you whatever you want to tolerate, I just find it odd that people are this angry over it, as if they've been deprived of something or have been personally wronged in some way. I find it odd that people would act in such a way. It just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Well, almost anything is a step above horse armour.

I personaly like the EA method: "Buy our game new and you can keep the DLC, otherwise... what the hell is the point?
I mean, if you're renting, then you don't need DLC, if you're buying second-hand, this is the only way us personaly are getting money off of you."

 

[GotMalkAvian]

You guys are forgetting that the game industry is a business first and foremost. As long as they can turn a profit doing it, they'll do it. If you enjoy playing games than you should just suck it up or find another damn hobby to enjoy. I hear good things about basketball.

Or you could do the thing that actually matters and not purchase the DLC in the first place. These corporations exist because we pay them, not the other way around. Charging for stuff is fine, but the kind of stunts that we are seeing here, and believe you me they are stunts, would not fly if we were talking about movies or music or books. You think the movie producers couldn't give you 3/4 of a movie and then charge you five dollars for the other 1/4? Do you really believe that cannot be done? The only reason it is not done is because people wouldn't stand for it.

Um... the movie industry does do that, to an extent. Have you ever paid $5 more for a special edition DVD with deleted scenes because it was just $5 more than the bare-bones edition?

As far as I see it, it isn't that our standards are slipping. I think a lot of consumers have a very low threshhold for what they won't spend money on. A lot of companies started with high-quality content, and they've been trying to push things a little further to see what we're still willing to buy.
Unfortunately, gamers seem to be mostly a weak-willed bunch. How many online petitions and boycotts have gone out the window because all of the participants had to go stand in line for the midnight release of the very product they were protesting? A lot of us are addicts, and our pushers realize just how desperate we are for a fix.
Personally, I enjoy some DLC, as long as it's worthwhile and wasn't left out of the original release. Fallout 3 is a fairly good example; most of the DLC added significantly to the gameplay and story, offering large new areas, a decent number of quests, and new options for the player character. On the other end of the spectrum we have a game like We Love Katamari; at release, certain areas of the game were locked, and had to be unlocked via paid DLC that was released on the same day. Some achievements were even unobtainable without the DLC, meaning that a perfect 1000 gamerscore was impossible without paying for additional content. A DLC structure that's currently intriguing me is Mass Effect 2's; the Cerberus Network comes free with most copies of the game, but can be purchased if a card wasn't included. Plenty of free content has been released over the Network, with regular updates tricking in since the game's release. It seems as though they may be trying to implement a "one-price pass" system with Mass Effect 2; for the price of the Cerberus Network, the consumer is given access to all of the little toys that come trickling down the pipe. At least until they release the big content packs; it remains to be seen just how much may be charged for the Hammerhead content.
When it comes down to it, a lot of people have the right idea about DLC: Buy it if it's worth it to you, but be wise with your money and don't let the companies take advantage of us. DLC is an extremely slippery slope. Game companies now have proof-of-concept that they can release an unfinished product, release the additional content slowly over time, and continue to make profit on a game weeks or even months after the initial release. It's up to us to be picky, to send a clear message to companies with our money or lack thereof.

 

[MagicBucket]

Mass Effect 2: Normandy Crash site.

I didn't spend any money on it, but I totally would! I spent 20 hours on it, the branching storyline was incredible, and the moral choices were really difficult! I'm gonna go play it again now...

 

[Milney]

The internet, patching and DLC has started the downfall of the gaming we knew and loved.

Hyperbole? Perhaps - back back in the days prior to <50% of the populace (gaming populace anyway) having internet, let alone Broadband, Studio's actually invested heavily in QA and testing. Sure development cycles were almost 100% longer, if not more than that, but on the whole, if you bought a game you knew you wouldn't have to patch it weeks (if not days) into the general release - if at all.

Similarly "popcorn" DLC providing a stream of steady revenue from "pocket-money" gamers has killed any incentives for decent add-on packs, as the time needed to run a full development cycle to flesh out the ideas and the costs to manufacture said add-on overwhelm the easy money made by people who'll just throw "$10" at a new costume for thier character, or a non-combat pet and so on.

I do blame the developers (who whilst banging the drum of "We're artists" to the other entertainment mediums), but not as much as I blame us as gamers (well, you lot mainly, I don't buy DLC as I'm idle ) for allowing our standards to slip.

For all it's flaws I loved "Opposing Force" for Half-Life, Battlefield 2's "Special Forces" was possibly one of the best add-ons/extensions to a game I've seen (as not only did it retain the normal shooty-bang fun of the normal Battlefield 2, but the addition of Nighttime/Grappels/Ziplines added a whole extra dimension to the normal gameplay) and whole host of others.

In the end it comes down to market forces: Whilst some people are prepared to wait longer, and pay more for a fleshed out "Add-on", the majority of the paying market are happy to pay less for less "content" on a more regular basis. And it looks like that is here to stay.

 

[Calatar]

You guys are forgetting that the game industry is a business first and foremost. As long as they can turn a profit doing it, they'll do it. If you enjoy playing games than you should just suck it up or find another damn hobby to enjoy. I hear good things about basketball.

I don't like this argument that people shouldn't complain about paid-for DLC because gaming is a business. Yes, we all know that gaming is a business, but if they were doing a profiteering practice that we found despicable we'd still call them out for it. Nobody is required to quit playing games just because a gaming company is doing something they don't like that makes money.

Not that I'm saying that DLC is despicable or even bad, but I keep seeing this argument about how if something makes a company money, we shouldn't be complaining about it, and are required to "suck it up." That's not how things work; we are allowed to complain about a company's practices we disagree with.

At the same time, I don't agree with the OP that games are currently having a significant amount of content gimped from them to make a profit. In rare circumstances that may be true, but the general case is that the developers didn't have enough time to finish everything in time to put it on the disc (where there is content) or they merely created a few extra in-game items to sell for extra profit.

I like quality expansion packs too, but I'm unsure if DLC is replacing that. DLC is also cheaper and smaller, and thus is easier to develop, as smaller, profitable projects. I'm unlikely to be spending any money on such small content, where I might be willing to spend more on a quality expansion pack, but others likely differ from me on that, and prefer the low-cost smaller additions. So my standards remain the same.

 

[TotallyFake]

with intended content cut out.

Now that's a bold claim. Care to prove how intended content was cut out? Seems to me that most of it is added on. Sure, occasionally they'll seed the content (a la Dragon Age) but I'd hardly say the content is being cut.

 

[sephiroth1991]

These days it seems like all they do is add a new map/game mode

 

[cheywoodward]

You guys are forgetting that the game industry is a business first and foremost. As long as they can turn a profit doing it, they'll do it. If you enjoy playing games than you should just suck it up or find another damn hobby to enjoy. I hear good things about basketball.

Or you could do the thing that actually matters and not purchase the DLC in the first place. These corporations exist because we pay them, not the other way around. Charging for stuff is fine, but the kind of stunts that we are seeing here, and believe you me they are stunts, would not fly if we were talking about movies or music or books. You think the movie producers couldn't give you 3/4 of a movie and then charge you five dollars for the other 1/4? Do you really believe that cannot be done? The only reason it is not done is because people wouldn't stand for it.

Um... the movie industry does do that, to an extent. Have you ever paid $5 more for a special edition DVD with deleted scenes because it was just $5 more than the bare-bones edition?

As far as I see it, it isn't that our standards are slipping. I think a lot of consumers have a very low threshhold for what they won't spend money on. A lot of companies started with high-quality content, and they've been trying to push things a little further to see what we're still willing to buy.
Unfortunately, gamers seem to be mostly a weak-willed bunch. How many online petitions and boycotts have gone out the window because all of the participants had to go stand in line for the midnight release of the very product they were protesting? A lot of us are addicts, and our pushers realize just how desperate we are for a fix.
Personally, I enjoy some DLC, as long as it's worthwhile and wasn't left out of the original release. Fallout 3 is a fairly good example; most of the DLC added significantly to the gameplay and story, offering large new areas, a decent number of quests, and new options for the player character. On the other end of the spectrum we have a game like We Love Katamari; at release, certain areas of the game were locked, and had to be unlocked via paid DLC that was released on the same day. Some achievements were even unobtainable without the DLC, meaning that a perfect 1000 gamerscore was impossible without paying for additional content. A DLC structure that's currently intriguing me is Mass Effect 2's; the Cerberus Network comes free with most copies of the game, but can be purchased if a card wasn't included. Plenty of free content has been released over the Network, with regular updates tricking in since the game's release. It seems as though they may be trying to implement a "one-price pass" system with Mass Effect 2; for the price of the Cerberus Network, the consumer is given access to all of the little toys that come trickling down the pipe. At least until they release the big content packs; it remains to be seen just how much may be charged for the Hammerhead content.
When it comes down to it, a lot of people have the right idea about DLC: Buy it if it's worth it to you, but be wise with your money and don't let the companies take advantage of us. DLC is an extremely slippery slope. Game companies now have proof-of-concept that they can release an unfinished product, release the additional content slowly over time, and continue to make profit on a game weeks or even months after the initial release. It's up to us to be picky, to send a clear message to companies with our money or lack thereof.

The hammerhead content has been announced as coming this march and will apparently be free to all Cerberus Network members. I found this info at http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/107/1072510p1.html