Erradicate DLC ?

[Ranorak]

Without DLC I wouldn't have had Shivering Isles!

But at this point DLC is just invoking Sturgeon's Law. There are gems out there.

Some of the DLC I wouldn't mind:
Things like Bethesda's DLC, added quests, zones, that give proper playtime lengthening and gives players who finished the main game something new to explore. Also in this category, Mass Effect's Shadow Broker, etc.

Added fighters to a fighting game.
While I personally think Jill and Shuma Gorath are a nice example, some might argue they were released too soon. But if more fighters were added like this, I wouldn't complain.

Single player item packs. (healing potions, in game currency, etc.)
If people want to spend their RL money on something they can buy In Game, fine by me. I personally wouldn't do it. But if there is a market, go for it.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I have no problem with day-one DLC, since I buy my games new anyway. The only people hurt by that are those who only buy used, and I have no sympathy for them.

As for DLC in general, I think they're still trying to find a balance. Many games have done it perfectly (Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, Borderlands). Small additions that add to a game without being necessary.

But DLC is very easy to get wrong. Activision doesn't bombard us with DLC, but they grossly overprice what they do offer. Fifteen bucks for five CoD maps is outrageous.

EA peppers us with tons and tons of DLC, some of it fairly priced, some not. But EA was also much worse in the recent past, so they get points for getting better. They're the reason I think companies are still trying to find a balance.

 

[Kiardras]

I find it depends on the DLC. I rarely buy shooter map packs, just not interested. However I've bought all the ME2 DLC and most of the Dragon Age Origins and ME1 DLC.

I've not touched appearence or weapon packs however, they are completely pointless. I'm not paying for a different costume, but I'll splash out a fiver on a new companion and a new interesting mission or missions.

 

[windlenot]

The only DLC I usually get is more songs for Rock Band. I have no problem with it.

That's what I was about to comment on. Their DLC is pretty run of the mill; get it if you want it, dont't if not. That's also the only DLC I don't really regret.

 

[windlenot]

I also like the LittleBigPlanet DLC since they added some creation aspects along with new levels.

 

[whiteshadow84]

DLC isn't always for extra profit. Sometimes it for companies to try to break even. Unless its a unicorn DLC. <3

 

[MrTub]

I do think dlc is great if it stuff that is added after the game is done not when you sell a game and then ask for 10$ to unlock something that is already on the disc...

 

[KalosCast]

I do think dlc is great if it stuff that is added after the game is done not when you sell a game and then ask for 10$ to unlock something that is already on the disc...

I more or less agreed with this, until I played Dragon Age 2. That is a game that is obviously created for the sole purpose of selling DLC. So many fun things happen offscreen (like your entire first year in Kirkwall, where you apparently rose to the top of an organization and made a ton of friends) and two time-skips pretty much guarantee that they were intending to sell ludicrous amounts of DLC to just finish the basic plot of the game. Though whether they follow through on that, given the lukewarm reception of the game, remains to be seen.

Also, even if DLC is entirely original content, the gameplay to money ratio is usually much much much much lower than the original game or traditional expansion packs. There have, of course, been good examples DLC (usually just being downloadable expansion packs, like Shivering Isles) and bad examples of expansion packs. But on the whole, you're getting ripped off.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Apparently the Bethesda boss was qouted in an article here that there are still people buying horse armour for Oblivion, even 5 years after it was released.

This is the equivalent of a pimp selling to his girls drugs to keep the feeling that their alive, while still having control over their dependency...

Wow, you guys are really desprate to make them look evil for daring to give the fans extra content, aren't you? Let me guess, Microsoft is evil for putting Last.fm and Netflix usage on the 360 as well, as it's not how it started.

Nah i was just doing a crappy comparison for fun...

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

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.

i don't see why skin/sprite changes would be so different to the modding concept.

 

[masticina]

There is good DLC and bad DLC I agree and certainly they can nickle and dime you on it. But.. DLC does adds gameplay without having to buy a whole new game that really is just the newer version. So I like DLC.. IF priced right!

And that way game developers make money longer ... ..it has to be in balance with things though. Yes certain times games had DLC that is pathetic.. adding very little to the game or story and yet costing easily $10. That is sad! That is bad DLC.. Dragon Age for instance has some terrible DLC. The game itself is great but the DLC is suckage.. it just doesn't fits.

But there is also good DLC. That offers you the chance to go back into a real good game.. with some good added content for a good price.

So in the end it is the price that does it.. sometimes DLC is worth it others times it is utter nickle and diming.

And yes the "download an unlock key" DLC is the worst... if the content is already on the disk you should be able to play it.

 

[SageRuffin]

If you don't want to pay for the unlock key you can always unlock it yourself and if you tell me its impossible you are wrong. You just have to know what you are doing

I'm going to completely dismiss that dismissive tone ("if you tell me its [sic] impossible you are wrong") and simply say that I would love to hear how you managed to do that.

 

[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.

i don't see why skin/sprite changes would be so different to the modding concept.

You are advocating for the complete removal of ALL DLCs, i am saying that despite some of them being sucky, they replace the awful full-priced-only-with-a-few-skin-changes. If someone can make modding the console-version of games easier, great. But what we are talking about is DLCs and whether or not they should be removed entirely.

 

[SageRuffin]

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.

Are you for real? Why do you think ME2 dropped on 2 discs (at standard price I might add)? There was literally no room left on either disc. Would you rather have to swap between 3 discs just to access one extra mission?

Besides, the core story of ME2 was crap since it told you everything you needed to know on the back of the case (except the plot twist, of course). Almost the entire narrative came from the characters you recruited.

 

[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.

You show me one high school kid who developed a triple-A game with online gameplay, a full soundtrack, playtesting, the best graphics and more. Nice how you don't prove anything, though. Also, logic is not your sex slave. Stop raping it. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnecdotalFallacy]

"given the time." ... You might want to try reading and understanding. I don't need to prove anything to you. And keep your virus ridden pornsites to yourself. I'm really not interested in whatever misinformation your offering.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

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.

i don't see why skin/sprite changes would be so different to the modding concept.

You are advocating for the complete removal of ALL DLCs, i am saying that despite some of them being sucky, they replace the awful full-priced-only-with-a-few-skin-changes. If someone can make modding the console-version of games easier, great. But what we are talking about is DLCs and whether or not they should be removed entirely.

There's still some companies that release free "dlc", i don't see where's the problem really; you reward the players for being interested in your game by giving them a "treat" so they get some more stuff to do in the game (this is mostly a nowadays thing, since games have such a reduced lifetime, just like anything else in our capitalistic system of consuming, following the Toyotism era, where the idea of obsolescence is reflected effectively when we compare products we used to buy 30 or 40 years ago, and now: buy any aparatus and most of the time, after 5 years the device no longer serves) and get hyped for future releases of your games; instead it gets counterproductive, the way i see it.

 

[Weaver]

It's worth if it's an expansion pack.
Besides that it's generally hilariously overpriced.

 

[devotedsniper]

It all depends on the game, for example if it's DA's awakening then fine i don't mind because it offers at least 3 hours of gameplay, where if it's something like oblivions horse armor (i admit i did buy but i am a fan of elder scrolls so i support them) then no i don't agree with it.

 

[b4k4]

I'd be with the OP 100% if I saw much evidence of "paying full price for half a game" so they can fill in the holes with DLC later, but looking at my game shelf, I don't see that at all. There are 3 main types of DLC I've seen for games I own.

There's the FPS Map packs, like CoD and Halo's offerings, definitely not worth much more than $7, all things considered. Then you have the seperate, optional, side stories for games like Dragon Age or Fallout, that have little to nothing to do with the main story. Finally, you have all the miscellaneous packs; character packs for fighting games, cars and tracks for Racers, songs for Music games, and special weapons and gear for games like Crackdown.

The closest thing I think I've ever seen to what the OP mentioned would be in Assassin's Creed 2. You're playing through the main story, then partway through you get an error and have to skip over two memory sequences. You can tell that Ubisoft was leaving an opening for DLC there that they were obviously aware of while the game was in development.
The two sequences were completely irrelevant to the overall story (sure, stuff happens, but when you play through both of them, Ezio ends up exactly in the same situation as he was when he started, there's not even any character development for him), but if the events of those two years had been, for example, Ezzio kills everyone but the Spaniard and discovers he has to journey to England now to find him, and if you don't play the DLC you just start the next sequence in the middle of London with no explanation but a few lines of dialogue..... That would be the kind of situation that would make me feel like I'd been ripped off.

My big worry is that if "Free" 2 Play games (like what is rumored is coming to the 360 next year) become the industry standard, you could end up getting the first 10 levels of gameplay and story for little to no cost, and then you have to buy every 3-5 levels after that for $10 a piece.

 

[Wolfram23]

My 2 cents:

DLC is great and should persist and be supported, BUT, it has huge potential for abuse like "day 1 DLC" that isn't even free for paying customers (DA:O...).