DLC, or why isn't my game finished in the first place?

[Captain Pirate]

I don't see it as "My game wasn't finished.", instead "They finished the game, and now they are making extra stuff for it.".
I don't give a shit about whether it should've been on the game, if it's good, I'll buy it.

 

[baddude1337]

Some people do DLC right. If DLC is released a bit later down the line or just gradually to add to the game then that's great. What isn't cool is DLC that is either announced before release or just after, then you know the developers are trying to milk a few more quid out of you. It also irks me when the DLC is either Story based but not free, or the games where they make the DLC available in menus and the like, but not playable until you buy them.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

A lot of the time it's due to large publishers setting ridiculous timeframes because they want their money. That explains DLC and post-release patches and bugs.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Well, that's my stance pretty much on DLC and the like. I don't particularly like DLC unless it's just some add ons or things like that that don't really count towards story. Things like Map packs aren't really... that big a deal to me, but it just shows developers are trying to milk every cent they can out of games.

But it's worse when they hold out on both story DLC and patches. Why the fuck would they release a game that isn't finished? Just look at New Vegas. When that first came out, it was a buggy mess. I even refused to acknowledge that it came out in 2010 until they released a patch making it at least somewhat playable. Then you have DLC for quests that count towards story. Why must I pay even more to have a complete game?

This is especially ridiculous considering games already are too goddamn expensive. 60 USD is bullshit for a game and Australia's 100 dollars is just fucking bullshit.

What about free DLC that counts towards the story? Such as those from Valve and Epic Games?

what valve games would those be?
teamf fortress 2? um thats not got a story (and the patchings free)
ohhhh you mean the half life episodes, which are also released as stand alone games as they have the right to be, what they can be bought in shops you say wow so that leaves ummmm L4D i guess. I don't know enough about the game but considering its big selling point is its online co-op surely internet connection wouldnt be a big deal.

I guess somebody's complaining about the 360 version of L4D, where Valve isn't in control, and has to charge a minimum price based on the size of the files as per Microsoft. They can't control that. They want to give it away, but Microsoft won't let them. Don't blame Valve for that.

I agree completely with the patching problem. Releasing a game in basically unplayable form, expecting people to pay full price at release, and then making them wait a month or more before fixing the problems is just inexcusable.

As for the DLC, I think that some DLC is a good thing. DLC released a while after the game that extends the life of the game and fills in some backstory and moderately priced or free DLC are always welcome. I feel that Mass Effect 2 was a perfect model for all of that. DLC released at or just after a game launches, however, is complete bullshit. Beautiful Katamari is a great example of this. When the game launched, there were locations present in the game that told a player they had to download the appropriate content, and some of the achievements couldn't be earned without the DLC (this was out of 1000, not the higher score cap that DLC usually introduces).

The problem is that we, as a community, accept this. Since open software can't be returned at most retail outlets, game publishers and retailers have our money and there's no way to get it back, and we just accept that. In any other industry, faulty products can be returned, or if the problems are severe enough the manufacturers will recall them. Unfortunately, we're essentially addicts, and will take whatever they give us if it means another fix.

The following illustrates this perfectly:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6062/1258035395841.jpg

The vast majority of gamers don't have the willpower to show developers or publishers that we won't stand for this sort of treatment. Instead, we complain on internet forums and completely fail to speak with our money.

I speak with my money when it comes to my PS3 games. I refuse to by any PS3 game new, until Sony calms down. I win, and Sony still loses, because they don't get any more new game sales, and I still get to play PS3 games.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Downloadable content. Patches. Mmm. Doesn't that smell fresh, that clean burn that says, "Hey, we're big shot developers, so let's just ship this game out half constructed and FIX it all up LATER when the rush for the game is gone and the complaints mosey on in."

actually think about it from the developers point of view.

see they're thinking "why do we only see $23 from a $60 release"

When you get DLC the developers get all that money
It's just a marketing strategy
Extra Credits did an episode on it

In that episode they said a better solution would be to release the game for $30 and have you pay $30 on line to unlock half the game.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

wait a minute, i'm puzzled about the complaints over paying for story based DLC, considering you had to pay for expansion packs (which are the exact same thing as DLC except rather than downloading from the net it came on a disk you bought from the shop) for PC for continuations of the story (case in point; broodwar, operation flashpoint: resistance) yet no one complained about paying for them, in fact if i recall correctly they were often showered with praise, now that its shifted from a solid format (CD/DVD) to digital distribution, spread onto the consoles and for a much cheaper price than the expansion pack disks and people start whining aout how the developers are ripping them off by releasing half finished games and whatnot

methinks gamers are becoming a rather spoilt bunch

 

[CAPTCHA]

On the subject of patches:

I was on the Bioware forus a while back after they released the patch for Dragon Age and found a lot of angry people because the patch hadn't fixed any of the game breaking bugs (DEX having no effect, the ending not working, save corruption, etc...)and had instead chosen to focus on preparing it for the new expansion and fixing some very minor glitches (not being able to shatter boss rank creatures and an achievment unlock I believe).

Anyway, the Bioware Rep came on and in no uncertain terms told people they should be happy with what they got and that they are under no legal pressure to release any patches at all. He went on to quote some legal stuff to back his position, mainly regarding user agreements being based upon the game as released.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Firetaffer]

Well, that's my stance pretty much on DLC and the like. I don't particularly like DLC unless it's just some add ons or things like that that don't really count towards story. Things like Map packs aren't really... that big a deal to me, but it just shows developers are trying to milk every cent they can out of games.

But it's worse when they hold out on both story DLC and patches. Why the fuck would they release a game that isn't finished? Just look at New Vegas. When that first came out, it was a buggy mess. I even refused to acknowledge that it came out in 2010 until they released a patch making it at least somewhat playable. Then you have DLC for quests that count towards story. Why must I pay even more to have a complete game?

This is especially ridiculous considering games already are too goddamn expensive. 60 USD is bullshit for a game and Australia's 100 dollars is just fucking bullshit.

What about free DLC that counts towards the story? Such as those from Valve and Epic Games?

what valve games would those be?
teamf fortress 2? um thats not got a story (and the patchings free)
ohhhh you mean the half life episodes, which are also released as stand alone games as they have the right to be, what they can be bought in shops you say wow so that leaves ummmm L4D i guess. I don't know enough about the game but considering its big selling point is its online co-op surely internet connection wouldnt be a big deal.

\

Yeah Left 4 Dead and it's sequel were the main games I was trying to say, their DLC's add to the story.

 

[burningdragoon]

My thoughts are that untill people actually take action, nothing will change. Bitching on an internet forum about glitches or horse armour is one thing, but why not show how angry you are? I don't mean write a letter or e-mail because it will never be read, only way to show the developers that gamers aren't happy is a boycott. Be it a certain developer, certain franchise, whatever, if you don't buy any new games for a year they will get the message. If you still need to have a different game to play every week then go out and look for a classic gem in a 2nd hand shop. Plenty of them out there.
But, it won't happen.

Oh look, the solution. Too bad getting people to think and actually vote with their dollar.


I will still say the the Bethesda games are not good examples of "those pesky developers delivering unfinished games" (besides New Vegas). Not so much because fixing every bug is asking a lot, but because finding every single bug is asking them to never release the game.

 

[Frozengale]

It depends on the DLC. I personally hate how Dragon Age: Origins did DLC for example. Shale in my eyes is a necessary part of the game, and so is the Warden's Keep, yet you have to get those extra and you are suddenly paying 20-30 dollars extra on an already 60 dollar game. If you come out with DLC on the first day or first couple of weeks for that matter then it better be some freaking bug fixes. Cause if you have DLC the first day then it means it isn't an add-on, it was made and ready for the game you guys just decided to gut some of the most interesting parts because your greedy. I'm fine with paying for games and supporting companies, but I'm not fine with being taken advantage of.

If the DLC is bugfixes then I really don't care. Sometimes you have to get your game out into the market before you can find bugs. For PC games you can't test on every computer with every graphics card or sound card or what have you so I expect a few problems with PC games. With console games as long as the bugs are minor then it's all good as long as you get a patch out after the bugs have been found.

If you release your game and then decide to tack something on about a month or so later then I'm fine with that.

 

[Trolldor]

Personally, I'm a fan of DLC, so long as it isn't day one DLC (unless its a special for a collectors edition, and then only if it doesn't actually effect the game't plot. Just extra side-missions or whatever). If the price is reasonable and looks fun enough, and the developers have more ideas for a game after release, then I don't see why not release more.

And patches are a double-edged sword. On one side, its great that we're able to fix glitches and errors in games that were missed by play-testers. It can really save some games from being only "meh" due to a number of faults. On the other side, it allows developers to ship shoddy quality games to reach a deadline, knowing full well that they can fix them later on down the road.

As I have stated before, a lot of Day-One DLC is produced in the interim time between finished production and sale date.

The quality of that DLC is what matters.

Free Day-One DLC I like (In principle). Patches have been available for PC games for quite some time, the releases for consoles is an old feature on a new system.

 

[Wintermoot]

When a game gets released it still has bugs if they took the time to work them all out the game would take longer to get released.
DLC,s are there to make more money and expand the in-game universe.

 

[jesskit]

I dont mind DLC as long as it is reasonable, something that provides extra, not like here is more of the game you bought that we should have given you before. Tho seriously i saw the worst cost of a DLC on steam, $1073 for a complete DLC pack for Railworks 2. yes trains. it seemed so rediculous that the DLC cost that and the game was only $40

 

[Asuka Soryu]

My game consoles can't connect to the internet and there's no place nearby that sales long enough ethernet cables! Argh~

(bangs head on desk) DLC will never work for me.

 

[Dodgeboyuk]

when it comes to paying for DLC i would want to be able to demo the DLC with the full game so i can get a good idea of what i am goona get for my money

so if a company wants to release map packs and charge for them i would like to be able to play these maps in a try before you buy enviroment with my full game so i can make an informed decision on if i want it or not

being unable to test out the additional product before paying is what discorages me from paying for DLC

 

[Dodgeboyuk]

when it comes to paying for DLC i would want to be able to demo the DLC with the full game so i can get a good idea of what i am goona get for my money

so if a company wants to release map packs and charge for them i would like to be able to play these maps in a try before you buy enviroment with my full game so i can make an informed decision on if i want it or not

being unable to test out the additional product before paying is what discorages me from paying for DLC

in other words i am saying if you cant test the extra content before paying for it then it feels like a scam
its like demos for full games not being realeased who really wants to fork out their money when what their getting feels like blind luck?
yes it feels like blind luck even with the description that's provided that you should read at least two times before making a decision

i mean i just got civ 5(with no DLC) on steam is the DLC bundles worth the price they want for it?
the descriptions tell me they are not because i have drawn up an image in my head about what it adds to the game and it feels like nothing much extra but i wont know that truth about them unless i play them!

EDIT: maybe my opinion deserves its own thread MAYBE but anyways i am interested in what people have to say about what i think about DLC

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I find it bizarre that people gripe about DLC, especially when the argument is that it should have been a part of the game from the start.

Seriously people, if you get what you wish for, then we would be seeing 3 to 4 year development times, instead of 1 to 2 years. Only about a third of what comes out now would be par for what would come out each year.

Consoles, game number wise, would have much shorter life spans. Instead of a library of thousands of games you would have a library of a thousand or less.