Does a long list of DLC turn you off from the game?

[The_Blue_Rider]

You can complete it without spending a load of money.

On Topic: No. I look at DLC when I'm through a game. And then I decide if I buy it. Have yet to come across any game where I got the feeling of an uncomplete game because of DLC.

...and yet by definition a game without all of it DLC is incomplete.

Nope, the Vanilla game is a full experience, sure there's bad ways to handle DLC, but its not like you have to buy DLC to get an enjoyable experience.

To use an example, say you're at an Ice Cream store, and you ask for a scoop of Vanilla Ice Cream. The cashier says, well you can pay and extra 50 cents to add chocolate sprinkles, and you decline. Are you denied the full experience? No, you are not because you're still getting what you asked for, and you may not even like chocolate sprinkles.

Thats an example of most DLC, an example of DLC handled badly is If you asked for a scoop of Cookies and Cream, and they handed you just the Cream, and told you that you would have to pay extra for the Cookies.
Thats when you arent getting what was advertised.

So yeah, I know the analogy is a little strange, but thats why I think you can have full experiences without DLC

 

[chris11246]

I dont consider DLC to be bad if it's good DLC that shows that the creators are actively working on it and adding to the game.

 

[Noswad]

Yes, it can. I don't like the idea of buying a game in the knowledge that some of it is being withheld from me.

In my mind there are two types of DLC the expansion pack and the additional content

The expansion pack tends to be a separate entity or a continuation from the original game, that can be played after or during the main game, examples, shivering isle's, all the GTA IV DLC and lair of the shadow broker. I like these, they're fine, i don't feel in anyway without them the main games is any less good and can extend a games play value a great deal. This is good DLC I am on very good terms with it I even buy it occasionally

The additional content, these tend to set out to improve the main game, so for example we have Map packs, Weapon packs, and the ME additional characters. Yes while i happy that the developers are trying to improve the game, i find it mildly annoying that unless i buy the content I'm playing an effectively inferior version of the game. Day one DLC being the worst of this, my brand new game not being the best version it could be, damn now i feel pressured into spending more money, I came here to have fun and now they're telling me I won't have as much fun unless i buy more stuff of them.

The main difference between this and the expansion pack being, the expansion pack only adds to the game "liked GTA IV? well here's a story about a biker", "liked the old west? well here's the old west with zombies" yippee. What I don't like is "did you like ME2? well wouldn't it have been better if you'd had these extra guns or this thief girl" It does not take anything from the game but leaves me feeling like I'm losing out, OK obvious solution just buy the damn stuff but I'm quite poor and feel like I'm already paying through the nose for new releases.

 

[Tsaba]

Short answer yes
Long Answer only if the DLC costs money does it turn me off

 

[Epona]

The thing is: It is "additional content" (and in some cases content that was created in the time they should've worked on the main product... but then again, as long as it is more than skins I don't buy it).

The vanilla version of a game is the complete version. As a comic is complete in itself and side series are just additions. They are not mandatory to enjoy the product and they don't take away from anything.

The GOTY edition is in many points just a marketing trick to 1: give people easier access to the additional content and 2: lure people in giving money long after the initial release.

The GOTY is more than a marketing trick, it is the COMPLETE game in one package. That's my point, the game is incomplete without all the content intended for it. DLC does not stand alone, it exists because there is a vanilla game, the DLC is forever linked with a game and cannot be unlinked.

Episodes from Liberty City just called. They beg to differ.


I know it's a bit unusual, but EFLC is a 'dlc' that's 100% standalone. You don't even need to own GTA IV to play it! Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and The Damned ship with the engine and will happily run without a copy of GTA IV being present.

Most DLC isn't standalone. I guess to invalidate your point I would need to find ONE game that doesn't have standalone DLC? How about Oblivion or Tales of Vesperia or Final Fantasy XIII-2 or....you get the point.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Depends on how much it jacks the price up. That's one thing I like about Steam: you can get the game bundled with all DLC, and during a sale it can still end up as less than JUST the game at full price.
Edit: Depends on what it is, too. Does it actually ADD to the game, or is it something lame like "1 new reskinned gun!"
If the latter, I'll pass.

 

[iDoom46]

Not really, because DLC is always optional. It's there for you to buy if you want to get more out of your game. Nobody is forcing you to get it.

Now, DLC that's already on the disk and you're just paying for a code to unlock it, then I have a problem.
Or DLC like in FF XIII-2's case where you have to buy DLC to get the end of the game.

But other than that, good ol' regular DLC is just fine in my book.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

...and yet by definition a game without all of it DLC is incomplete.

That makes no sense..A dev can continue creating content for as long as they want. And in fact for some games anybody can create new content. By your logic if say Bethesda released a few new weapons for Skyrim, and if you dont have them, by your definition Skyrim would be "incomplete". What if a modder made those exact weapons, is the game still "incomplete" or is the content somehow only true if the dev makes it.

The way I look at it. A game is a game and DLC is DLC. When I buy a game I buy a complete product. The same is true if you go out and buy a car. There are probably thousands of extras and modificaitons that the makers have put out for any given car. Not owning those does not mean you have an "incomplete" car.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

As long as we still get the 'complete' GOTY editions on one disc or at least in one box, I don't mind.

However, I wonder how comes the publisher doesn't mind getting my cash one year after release. It's a concept I have yet to wrap my head around.

Don't get me wrong, I've bought into many DLC-laden games, pardon, franchises before. I just eventually got a bit bored with the install-download-download some more-install route of things. I think it's a complete waste of good bandwidth.

 

[theevilgenius60]

I look at it this way: I'll play a game I bought and enjoy it or not for what it is. If I enjoy it, I start looking for dlc for it. If I don't, they can keep their dlc. Dlc , for me, is a reason(new content) to play a game I enjoyed again. A long list of dlc? A long list of new reasons to play the game(I buy them a few at a time if there is an overwhelming amount).

 

[Epona]

...and yet by definition a game without all of it DLC is incomplete.

That makes no sense..A dev can continue creating content for as long as they want. And in fact for some games anybody can create new content. By your logic if say Bethesda released a few new weapons for Skyrim, and if you dont have them, by your definition Skyrim would be "incomplete". What if a modder made those exact weapons, is the game still "incomplete" or is the content somehow only true if the dev makes it.

The way I look at it. A game is a game and DLC is DLC. When I buy a game I buy a complete product. The same is true if you go out and buy a car. There are probably thousands of extras and modificaitons that the makers have put out for any given car. Not owning those does not mean you have an "incomplete" car.

You seriously don't see the difference between official DLC and mods? Why would I try to convince someone so far out in left field?

 

[Doom-Slayer]

You seriously don't see the difference between official DLC and mods? Why would I try to convince someone so far out in left field?

Aaaand you ignored the rest of my post. But hey all good.

If a modder were to read up on all of the lore, know all of the characters and be as familiar with the content of a game or series as the devs are, then make a semi expansion pack for free and release it, what would make that any less "official" than something released by the company themselves.

To any gamer as far as they are concerned, its additional content that is consistent with the original game the world and the lore. If the quality of the content is to a high enough standard to match the quality of the developers, then theres almost no difference. The only difference in content is it might stray from the vision of the creators and not be something they want to release. And as far s 99% of gamers are concerned, I dont think people could care less.

There have been plenty of cases where modders have worked with developers to make content, and for 99% of the content to be made by the modder, and then to be released with official support. So somehow thats official and would make you game "incomplete" yet if they released it without the official stamp youd disregard it.

Once again Ill use the car anaology. If I buy a spoiler for my car, I dont care if its made a different company than who made my car. I DO care, if it doesn't fit the aesthetic of my car, or if it isn't very good. Those are facts about the quality of the additional part or content, the person who made it .

 

[-Samurai-]

Nope.

See, I follow this crazy ass rule that no one seems to be able to grasp;
I only buy DLC that interests me. Fucking crazy, right?

I don't know how people can stand to live with developers and publishers in their homes, holding a gun to their head and demanding that they buy DLC or they'll be killed.

 

[Broady Brio]

Assuming the list of Fallout 3's DLC to be long here... Nope. I beat the vanilla game first. Then played through the bought DLC. It's extra content to me, not missing content.

 

[Epona]

You seriously don't see the difference between official DLC and mods? Why would I try to convince someone so far out in left field?

If a modder were to read up on all of the lore, know all of the characters and be as familiar with the content of a game or series as the devs are, then make a semi expansion pack for free and release it, what would make that any less "official" than something released by the company themselves.

Wow, are you serious?

Hey, maybe if I know all the lore in the Star Trek universe and I write a blog about it, will it be official? Will CBS have too acknowledge it as official because I read up on all the lore?

As an example, the last Star Trek movie was directed by a non trek fan, JJ Abrams. It's still official yet all the fan stuff you find online from people who know more about the Trek universe is not official. Why is that?

Don't bother to answer. I am done with this topic. I never started it to argue about DLC, just to ask if others felt the same way.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

-snip

Still missing the point but oh well.

My main point though is that DLC/mods is still just that, its additional content, NOT part of the product I bought and payed for. Content like this no matter where it comes from is neither neccessary nor required to have the experience the devs intended with their product. When they sell you a game, they sell you a complete game, if you dont want the extra content, cool..if you do..cool, go play it. Last I checked when I played Fallout 3 I played a full game. It had a plot, a story, it had weapons mechanics and enemies. I did no buy "half a game" because there exist a few more side mission dlcs out there.

Saying that a game becomes incomplete the moment DLC for it exists just reeks of entitlement and the thought that dlc somehow detracts from the original experience.

What you are trying to refer to is something along the lines of a game "Experience". As in, you are saying that when you buy Skyrim you are buying an "experience" in that world and when new dlc is created, your experience is lacking because there is something that exists that you dont have. Quite simply thats well...full of crap. A game is not an abstract concept, it is a limited space, with a specific set of content with specific rules. When you buy that game you are paying for every quest, item and NPC in that game. If another set of content is created..you havent payed for it...you are not entitled to it, and it does not affect the "completeness" of that product because it is not part of it. It is an addition to it.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

It depends like for a game like battlefield or mw3 the dlc is what keeps the games from becoming boring so no i like it when they make it, but others like saints row 3 where i almost have all the achivements and then they add more and i don't have microsoft points to get the dlc so my dream of having just one game 100% is delayed again then yes it does ruin the experience somewhat.

But that's just me it's still fun to play it just stings a bit when I look and know I can't get those last few and it just bugs me.