Erradicate DLC ?

[SL33TBL1ND]

It depends on the size to price ratio of the DLC. DLC is typically cheaper than a fully fledged expansion and also contains less as well. As long as the ratio is fair to consumers, I don't see the problem.

 

[Solid Reece]

DLC is a horrible idea since its just letting game developers release under developed games and chrage you for them not finishing it.

Some stuff that is DLC should really be classed as expansion packs i.e the DLC's which add an absolute shit load of extra content such as shivering isles for oblivion to name one while others just dont deserve the light of day. For example the DLC for MW2 in which they just copy pasted the maps from MW1 and charged you £10-£15 for it. Also games that are DLC reliant for making money cut down the modding community a lot because developers naturally don't want modders just to copy their maps and put them out for free on seperate mods which is probably what would have happened in MW1 if they had tried DLC for the computer. However in MW2 they removed mod support in all forms and charged ludicrous amounts for shite DLC.

I think you are being more than a little paranoid about devs releasing unfinished games and all, sure they can but I seriously doubt it happens nearly as much as people seem to think.

And I just had to counter your CoD DLC complaint. It is not as simple as copying and pasting maps. I assume you realize that the maps use a looooooooooooooot of code, yes? And furthermore that most of the code that is used in MW1 is probably significantly different than MW2 or Black Ops? they would have to have teams of programmers running through god knows how many lines of code, changing variables that no longer exist and writing completely new code to account for different aspects of the game. Then they would have another team have to debug all the maps over again, give feedback to the programmers, etc repeat ad nauseum.

My main point is that even though you may think it is a simple operation (which it is not) even if it were, Activision would still have to pay their workers for porting the maps over. And if they have to pay to do this, you are damn sure we have to pay for it too. It just depends on how badly you want the maps. But it is not like it does not cost a thing to move maps over.

Another reason the maps are price are how many people buy them. They have to make a set amount of money for the time they spent on it

 

[caselj01]

I will boycott any DLC that is not worth the money that it costs to buy it.

 

[ScorpSt]

To everyone who's against DLC, what would these games look like if they never made DLC for them? Answer: They'd look exactly the way they do when you first buy them. Ok, yes, some developers might remove content to sell as DLC later, but it's a very small number.

How's about a number, since it's a small one and thus should be easy to count?

I don't know how many do it. Do you? Can you name any developers that you are certain do this?

This is what I hear: "Remember the good old days, when you played through a game once and that was it. If you wanted more content, you had to wait 2 years for them to make a sequel. If there were any bugs, as long as they weren't game breaking, nobody patched it because no one was being paid for it. That's the way it was and we liked it!"

Why don't you guys get off your high horse, drop a little money into your favorite developer, and buy something for a game you enjoyed. Then maybe you can pay for those patches you're screaming for.

Are you kidding me? Patches didn't exist before DLC?

Not what I said. I said that there were no patches for anything other than the most game breaking of bugs. Have you seen the sheer volume of patches that developers are putting out these days? Not to mention how long after the development cycle they're being introduced. That's all paid for by DLC.

 

[philcelery]

I don't know how many do it.

So how do you know it's small? I didn't ask because I knew the answer, I asked because you pretended you did.

Not what I said. I said that there were no patches for anything other than the most game breaking of bugs.

Which is an incredibly stupid thing to say because it isn't the least bit true.

Have you seen the sheer volume of patches that developers are putting out these days? Not to mention how long after the development cycle they're being introduced. That's all paid for by DLC.

Let's see, Mass Effect 2 has been patched twice and had several DLCs. Fallout 3 had about 5 DLCs I think, and had I think three patches that actually fixed bugs as opposed to just adding achievements for those DLCS. One of those patches actually broke stuff for the PC version and was never fixed even though the stuff it broke came out prior to the first DLC.

Unreal Tournament 3 and The Witcher for PC had no DLC and received several patches that not only fixed minor things, but actually rebuilt parts of the games that fans didn't like and added extensive amounts of content, for free. In the case of the Witcher, fans got lots of non-game content for free if they registered the game. Unreal Tournament 3's Titan Pack came out almost a year after its previous patch and during a time the base game was retailing for 11 dollars.

So I'm just wondering, where did this idea that DLC pays for patches come from?

 

[ScorpSt]

A bunch of things I said taken completely out of context.

A load of BS.

Ok, clearly arguing with you is getting me nowhere. You seem to like taking my every sentence out of context and inferring things from them that I'm not saying at all. DLC extends the life-cycle of games you already purchased. Buy it or don't, no one's forcing you. Just stop bitching about it's existence.

 

[ecoho]

The DLC is extra, it never is necessary to purchase. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Sometimes I want the extra content, so I have no desire to boycott.

I don't even care if it's day 1 DLC encoded on the disk. It's extra.

Name me these so called 'half-games' please, otherwise I guess I don't understand the argument.

My problem is only when content is cut to be released as DLC. Something like Lair of the Shadow Broker, or Arrival was rather integral to ME's story, but to experience that, you have to pay for DLC. Not only does this punish players who, for various reasons do not purchase the DLC, but it also punishes the somewhere between 30-50% of players who are not connected to the PSN or Xbox Live.

When the content simply adds onto the game though, I'm fine with it; even glad that it's been made. Most of the Oblivion DLC is a pretty good example of this.

in the case of ME2
1.you get all the dlc except arrival in the PS3 version
2. arrival will be talked about in the intro to ME3 (think about that text that scrolled before ME2 started)
3. i feel for those who cant connect to the online servers(its about %10 total) but in truth if you can afford to own a console you can get internet.(you can download through everything save dial up and lets face it dsl is so cheap most people should have it)
now i do beleave that biware should release all their dlc for ME2 on a disc like they did with awakening but that probily wont happen seeing as the discs didnt sell the first time

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Of course not!

Video games will ALWAYS have release dates. This is a hard fact. However, DLC allows a company to add to the game AFTER the release date and improve the experience for everyone!

Now, do I think DLC is perfect? No way. Bobby Kotick and friends have been abusing it like crazy and it could get worse. But that doesn't mean it should disappear.

And besides, there is nothing we can do anyway. Gaming boycotts are just free publicity.

EDIT: In terms of these so called "Half finished games", they simply don't exist. ANY game can be improved in a number of ways and DLC does that quite nicely.

 

[philcelery]

A bunch of things I said taken completely out of context.

A load of BS.

Ok, clearly arguing with you is getting me nowhere.

Argue better.

You seem to like taking my every sentence out of context and inferring things from them that I'm not saying at all.

Let's establish the points

You did say "Ok, yes, some developers might remove content to sell as DLC later, but it's a very small number." and later admitted you didn't actually know how many do it. I'll admit, it was a bit of an irrelevant point and maybe a cheap shot but I also admit I enjoyed it.

You didn't say patches didn't exist before DLC, I admit that was a simplification but you did reiterate that they didn't exist but to fix the most game breaking of bugs which is still wrong.

You did ask me about I have seen the increased volume of patches being released today, which I didn't directly answer but I will now, no not really. Then you reasserted the point that got me to want to respond to you to begin with and that we need to spend more money on the games we already bought so that we can "pay for patches".

DLC extends the life-cycle of games you already purchased.

Games I purchase should already have a lifecycle in plan that accounts for patches.

Buy it or don't,

I don't.

no one's forcing you. Just stop bitching about it's existence.

I'm not actually bitching about its existence but you are bitching about people not being completely spineless and I think that's a whole lot worse.

 

[Antari]

Oh dear god, how dare they do extra work and expect to be paid for it?! How dare they give fans more stuff and not apologize for it! Seriously, it's one thing for them to lock stuff on the disk. It's another for them to develop new stuff and people ***** they don't get it for free.

No the world can be ALOT better than the 80's and 90's if they'd put the effort into it. Companies that release DLC land themselves on my automatic NO BUY list. Ya I'm pretty damn bored these days. But I'm not wasting my money on crap.

Seriously? So a company finishes a game, but because they DARE to give people more content (and expect to actually get paid for their hard work) you get angry? That's some of the most self-entitled crap I've ever heard.

The Mass Effect situation pisses me off. DLC is fine. But when you release DLC that significantly affects the plot of a trilogy then I call foul. I paid 64$ for ME2, and I damn well expect a self-contained story. If you have to have DLC that bridges 2 to 3 then you failed as writers. How about spending more time developing a game? Oh no, we have nonsensical deadlines to meet.

Yes, how DARE they release more gameplay! It's not like the fans would instead whine about it taking too long if they spent 5 years working on every game or something!

Finish a game? Hard work? More gameplay? ... If I put that sort of effort into my work, I'd get FIRED! Not to mention my boss would probably use his boot to show me out the door.

I EARN my money, my parents don't make it for me, so I understand the value of it. Yes, how DARE they expect me to pay full price for a half-assed piece of software any high school kid could have come up with given the time. They are supposed to be PROFESSIONALS. I know you don't have a clue what that means but it is important in the REAL WORLD.

 

[LittleBlondeGoth]

I'm not averse to DLC... Hell, as an EQ player I'm used to paying once for the game, then every month for the sub, then again for the next expansion pack... MMORPGs are basically open wallet surgery in a fancy box.

What I do object to though is release day DLC. Because quite frankly, that could have gone in the game to start with.

 

[ScorpSt]

A bunch of things I said taken completely out of context.

A load of BS.

Ok, clearly arguing with you is getting me nowhere.

Argue better.

You seem to like taking my every sentence out of context and inferring things from them that I'm not saying at all.

Let's establish the points

You did say "Ok, yes, some developers might remove content to sell as DLC later, but it's a very small number." and later admitted you didn't actually know how many do it. I'll admit, it was a bit of an irrelevant point and maybe a cheap shot but I also admit I enjoyed it.

You didn't say patches didn't exist before DLC, I admit that was a simplification but you did reiterate that they didn't exist but to fix the most game breaking of bugs which is still wrong.

You did ask me about I have seen the increased volume of patches being released today, which I didn't directly answer but I will now, no not really. Then you reasserted the point that got me to want to respond to you to begin with and that we need to spend more money on the games we already bought so that we can "pay for patches".

Before DLC, most games were not supported with patches after the first couple months of release. Now, you can make the argument that there are games that continue to release patches and content updates without charging DLC. That is technically correct, but I have to ask, was this happening before the advent of DLC?

The point I was making is that developers have to pay people to make patches. Some developers make this money through the sale of DLC. Some do not. The point I was trying to make is that it is a valid business model and to treat it as nothing more than greed is a fallacy.

DLC extends the life-cycle of games you already purchased.

Games I purchase should already have a lifecycle in plan that accounts for patches.

Buy it or don't,

I don't.

no one's forcing you. Just stop bitching about it's existence.

I'm not actually bitching about its existence but you are bitching about people not being completely spineless and I think that's a whole lot worse.

None of this was directed at you. Perhaps I should've used a second paragraph to establish that, but it wasn't. And by extend the life-cycle, I wasn't referring to patches, I was referring to the fact that, if you were to purchase the DLC, you'd go back and play the game, even if you'd already finished it.

 

[mrF00bar]

I must admit I have caved in with the ME2 DLC, I have all of them installed or will be installed soon. I tried to resist but new missions and guns were too tempting...save yourselves...*drowns under DLC*

 

[philcelery]

Before DLC, most games were not supported with patches after the first couple months of release. Now, you can make the argument that there are games that continue to release patches and content updates without charging DLC. That is technically correct, but I have to ask, was this happening before the advent of DLC?

Yes, very much so.

The point I was making is that developers have to pay people to make patches. Some developers make this money through the sale of DLC. Some do not. The point I was trying to make is that it is a valid business model and to treat it as nothing more than greed is a fallacy.

Here's the problem with this. Software, not just games, but any software that has a development cycle worth a damn, includes post release support for things like patches. The money coming in from the sales or a set aside budget should take care of this. DLC is already its own product that should have its own life cycle for its own related bugs. The determining factor of software getting patched should not depend on the sales of add-ons. I'm not saying they can't happen to use that money, I'm saying patches shouldn't be dependent on it. Any company doing so is being unethical and does not deserve support. I say that as a software developer.

 

[Vault101]

I think most of the time the power of DLC is used for evil..not good

it also pisses me off when DLC turns out to be a very important part of the game

 

[Laser Priest]

Should you boycott nearly every single company out there?

Go for it, you won't get very far though. Not that internet boycotts ever do.

well, when they start realizing they're getting a bad reputation, i assume they'll change their approach on it.

EA and Activision are hated by most of the gaming community and they haven't changed shit.

And some DLC that actually add to their games and aren't made until after the game came out are acceptable. Day one DLC, map packs, costume packs, all of that is horrible cash-in bullshit on the developer's part.

Generally, I don't like DLC.

 

[hawkeye52]

snip for the sake of not having massive walls of text

but the problem with the fact that they didnt even bother trying to create new maps which is half of the process. I have no problems with them releasing previous maps in the original game but trying to sell them off again just promotes stagnation and and laziness within the industry. Also though wouldn't the development crew have created some sort of map editor to create maps to help cut down the process and although it probably would be a ***** to make help in the long run if they are going to rely on making more income through shite DLC.

 

[Gunner 51]

I'm not averse to DLC... Hell, as an EQ player I'm used to paying once for the game, then every month for the sub, then again for the next expansion pack... MMORPGs are basically open wallet surgery in a fancy box.

[/b]What I do object to though is release day DLC. Because quite frankly, that could have gone in the game to start with.[/b]

My sentiments exactly. Though I think that's mostly fallout (no pun intended) from EA's Project Ten Dollar.

As strange as it sounds, most of the complaints about DLC seem to stem from the common opinion that it is over-priced for what the content is made of.

Make DLC worth it's price, and the developers will incur much less wrath. Something like Shivering Isles is a fine example of this, good length and quality for a fair price. (1200 MSP)

Whereas something like COD's map packs are small bits of content and have more holes in 'em than gorgonzola - simply aren't worth the 1200 MSP asking price. Decrease the price to something a bit more fair like 400 MSP, and people will end up saying what good value they are.

After that little rant, I feel like going off to listen to a spot of Combichrist.

 

[LittleBlondeGoth]

When you think that you pay around £40-£50 for a game, shelling out another 10 quid for maybe an hours worth of extra gameplay simply doesn't feel like a good deal.

I bought Awakenings for DA:O, and whatever you may think of it as regards story or canon or whatever, the fact remains I got a good many hours of extra darkspawn bashing out of it, so I didn't begrudge the money. On the other hand, I have Dance Central for my XBox (don't judge me!) and to buy an extra track - just one - is something like £4, if memory serves. Which, though not a lot in and of itself, does add up quite quickly. A few of those, and you've paid almost as much as the original game, but got less tracks for the cash. If that makes sense.

But I do appreciate that developers put out that extra content. Extra tracks, maps, missions... But sometimes it seems the price isn't worth what you get.

 

[Hyper-space]

Can the world be like the 80's & 90's without that invention again ?

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/04/gaming-in-the-90s-really-sucked/

and why they (DLC) existed in the 90's.

well at that time it wasn't really DLC, when games sold very well, and had a good bunch of followers, they used to make those "Expansions" that actually added much much more content to the original game, and not just a horse for some bucks if you get my meaning.

at least it wasn't a marketing thing like nowadays.

Your thinking of EXPANSIONS, not mission packs like DLC's where back then. Companies would often release the same game with just a few sprite changes and different skins, because they couldn't release it as a DLC like now, i suggest you watch the video.

Yeah you got a point in that one, which enhance the subject that DLC is then overused (and outdated?). I loled at "the DLC Bullsh¡t content". But it's interesting that, even the minimum new content that devs release, for a fee, are in reality worse when compared with what modders would do, for free, if they had the tools. which adds another question: did they planned on purpose to overuse the DLC's in consoles, since those who owns consoles can't do anything about it? while on the PC, tools & mods give an infinite amount of replayability and creativity to the original game.

Maybe that's why most of the developers released their games on console/s only, since it's more profitable...

DLC and patches do have a purpose beyond mere money-making and are frankly much better than what console developers did back in the 90's. But like EVERYTHING IN THE HISTORY OF ANYTHING it has a flip-side, namely that console developers sometime use it to simply make more money and not give you more content. But hey, beats having to release A WHOLE NEW GAME THAT WAS FULL PRICED for a few skin/sprite changes.

Also, no one is talking about mods here, it a completely different point.