Has DLC gone too far?


The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
I think it has, but I also think it's going to get WORSE.

Prepare yourself for MORE 'on disc' DLC and the end of alt costumes/weapon designs/etc.

The average gamer is an idiot, and these companies are exploiting them for all they're worth.


New member
Mar 19, 2008
If the game feels like the story is complete then that's fine. What pisses me off is "True Ending" DLC's. We haven't gotten many lately, and I hope it stays that way. Still haven't forgiven Asura's Wrath.

Also, between the base game and season pass, I've dropped 161 hours on Borderlands 2 and am still working on completing True Valut Hunter. Haven't even done Ultimate yet. Even if my Season Pass didn't contain everything, that is still a huge chuck of game. But really, I read the fine print. I knew what the season pass contained and I'm clearly not entitled to the other dlc's. Some people don't seem to grasp that.


New member
May 2, 2013
I am fine with all DLC that has no effect on the main story, world building is fine. Basically Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival in Mass Effect 2 were bad dlc and Project Overlord, Kasumi and Zaeed was perfectly acceptable. Extra missions, weapons, outfits feel free to charge for that since all of that is optional and i dont care much about it.


New member
Sep 2, 2011
I like small amounts of DLC but usually it leaves me thinking badly of the game.

Despite loving Saints row 2 I ended up completely ignoring Saints row 3 just because of all the DLC it had. My idea of well done DLC is something like Skyrim or Oblivion(With some exceptions) where they add big expansions to the game with new questlines and areas such as shivering isles or dawnguard.

My idea of what is bad DLC is pretty much any kind of DLC EA has ever put out.


New member
Nov 17, 2008
Some DLC is fine, some is shit.
DLC that's just guns or whatever content like that is ignorable and it's up to you if you maybe want a gun that shoots chum that summons sharks from the ground ...Saints Row 3
Or a retarded 15 dollar map pack for 15 dollars which other games either give out for free or give out more content for cheaper.

What was wrong with Saints Row DLC, oh no! It had a lot of cosmetic DLC and dumb guns! ...So ignore it, or pick them up on a sale for a DOLLAR each. The full package was on sale for 11 bucks so the DLC isn't even an issue, what can you say against it?


New member
Nov 30, 2012
KingsGambit said:
Further, using Borderlands 2 as another example I consider dishonest and disreputable on the part of Gearbox, selling "Season Passes" ahead of time and later releasing DLC that is not included as part of it and is in fact, a further charge in addition.
That was really the only time I really said, "Fuck you" to DLC, it was a huge douche move on Gearbox's end. Wait, actually just recently I kinda got pissed off at Overkill for Payday 2. While I love Payday 2, and I think the content they provided was well worth the 50 dollars (Special edition FTW!), I got real pissed off when I found out that there were only 7 heists with most levels borrowing the maps from each other as opposed to the 30 that was promised in the description on Steam. When Overkill finally addressed the complaint they said "We were miss quoted", I'm sorry, but how is it that the Steam page that you made count a misquoting? They say that they're making more missions for future DLC that will be longer than 3 days, but I just feel as though they could have done so much more, especially seeing as how the original started off with only 4 maps that were all about 30 minutes to an hour in length.

Other than those 2 examples, I'm fine with DLC, be it day 1 or 20 ad ons that cost 5 dollars to change the colour of clothes. I don't often buy it, but I'm fine with it.


New member
Apr 29, 2013
"Has DLC gone too far?"

Oh, you wanted me to qualify?

I liked the old-school system of releasing a (full and clearly finished) game, wait a year and release a big expansion (repeat for a maximum of two expansions total) then work on sequel. This means new campaign/levels (at least 67% estimated play-time of original), new units/weapons, preferably a new mechanic of some kind, and a release price no greater than 50% of base game's release price.

Alas, those days are gone. So, off the top of my head:

[Manifesto begins]

1) No releasing incomplete games for full price then grabbing more money via DLC. Not cool. Either make a full game or a free-to-play game, you greedy bastard. This includes day-one DLC. Also see the Asura's Wrath incident.

2) No in-game plugging of DLC (Dragon Age, I'm looking at you). Exceptions might be made for ads on the main menu maybe, depending on how it's done. "Tasteful" is your watch-word here. Strictly no real-money shops ingame (special exemption for free-to-play - but again, keep it tasteful).

3) I don't particularly like preorder bonuses, mostly because in a post-Aliens: Colonial Marines industry I'm generally against the practice of preordering. I could maybe tolerate preorder DLC if it's non-exclusive; ie give weapon skin x for free to those who preorder from retailer a, and weapon skin y to those who preorder from retailer b, on the conditions that all such items can be purchased by everyone else after release, and that the other rules of the manifesto are generally adhered to. Timed exclusives - fine, if you really must.

4) A season pass is all DLC. All of it. Looking at you, Borderlands.

5) Release a reasonable amount of DLC then move on to the sequel. That means you, Sims.

6) Cutting features of previous games/expansions in the sequel, so you can release them as an expansion again - generally not cool but depends on circumstance I guess. Just don't take the piss. For example, since pets were introduced in a Sims 2 expansion, I see no reason why a seemingly-simple feature shouldn't have been in Sims 3 vanilla game, at least in fundamentals (especially since Sims 3 had the item shop to expand beyond basics).

[Manifesto ends]

As for whether I was ever put off a game by DLC - the last (but not only) example was when I was about 5 seconds from pressing the button to buy Payday 2 but paused to read one more article about it first and discovered their plans to release (3?) DLC packs in future. F*ck that, I'll wait for a GotY or something. Maybe.

Also, this is what goes through my head every time I have any in-depth thoughts about "DLC":
Every. Damn. Time.


Coxa no longer floppin'
Jun 22, 2009
Its effected how I buy games yes.

Take Arkham Origins for example. I can't wait to play it I have 100%-ed AA and AC, but when it comes out I'm going to rent, and 100% the main game, then in a years time I'm going to buy the Complete Edition.

So in my case, I guess developers and publishers get less of my money.


New member
Jun 11, 2013
I take issue with cosmetic stuff and "special" weapons. I don't mind DLC that features generous amounts of new playing experience and breaths fresh air into a game, as long as a complete experience is provided with the base game.


New member
Sep 24, 2010

I should make it clear that I seldom support DLC. I still look at it as paying 1/10th the cost of the game to add 1/100th of the games content. In other words, it's price inflated to the moon in my eyes. 1 hour of content added to a 60 hour content game should cost $1.00 to buy. Not $5.00-$15.00.

That said, I still give into DLC on rare occasions. Most notable is Rock Band.
A single song cost $2.00 in a game that offers 80ish songs for $60.00.
I'll buy a DLC song because I'm likely to play it at least 20 times over the years.

Back on topic:
I don't feel DLC has gone to far because I've never passed on a game because of it's existance. DLC has always felt complimentary to the game experience as opposed to a necessity. This feeling doesn't change regardless of distribution method either.

In fact I prefer on-disc/day 1 DLC to the alternatives because it's a convenience when/if I choose to indulge. I'd rather have the content quickly and easily accessible then be done with the game for a couple weeks/months and then have the content released.

DLC hasn't gone to far until it feels mandatory to enjoy the initial game experience.
In the meantime, that doesn't mean I have to like it.


New member
Mar 29, 2011
For me, yes. I already have the habit of expecting to get good deals after some time anyway. So I'm always playing games from 1 or 2 years ago. There are so many games to play, so that I have no need to rush to play something just because it was released recently. This is especially true for games that have support for MODs, because the longer I wait, the more time the community will have to create interesting things. In the end, I end up buying the "full" and "cheaper" version of the game, which is profit for me.


Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
Bellvedere said:
To defend the BL2 DLC for a moment, the Season Pass was only ever supposed to include the first 4 "major" DLC packs (which it does + UVH Upgrade pack). You can still buy the season pass for a cheaper price than buying them individually and the season pass itself has been part of sales (like the Steam midyear sale). It's actually a pretty fair deal...
I can't see why you would defend such a practice. Just because they clearly stated that it will include 4 packets we are supposed to accept that we're only getting 4 pieces of DLC? In what world does that make sense?

Sorry about the sarcasm, I'm sleepy, but I agree. No-one was ripped off in this, it was informed what would be included and we are getting 4 DLC packets each set at the price of $10 for $30. Now I haven't played them, but the DLC missions in the original certainly gave me my money's worth so I'm not complaining. The game was worth it too so the DLC doesn't bother me one bit.

OT: Some DLC has gone too far, but it's not turning me off games as long as the game is actually complete and more importantly good. Take Tales of Vesperia or Tales of Graces. They have lots of DLC which means little. None of it changes the core game or the length of the game, but some of it is to get more gald (money) more experience, some titles that can be unlocked through normal gameplay. I don't like this kind of DLC, but it doesn't bother me. It's overboard, but I can get most of it anyway.

Then there's Saints Row The Third. Cheat codes are considered DLC, small skin upgrades, weapon upgrades and such is considered DLC. That is goig overboard and I don't like it as it seems to be removing things that should be a part of the core game.

Then finally there's the DLC I like. DLC that adds a breath of fresh air to a game you finished. Alan Wake and its epilogue, Borderlands and the Zombie missions. There's more game and I like the game, thus I like the DLC.

OK, let me apologize for rambling. I am really tired now and I will probably not be able to make sense of this tomorrow.


New member
Aug 3, 2011
I rarely buy an DLC so its doesnt bother me what they release. No one is forced to buy it. Only time they cross the line is pay to win where you can down load level upgrades or money - there is a 360 jrpg that has those types of DLC. The original game has to be a full game, and as long as the DLC is just extras, then im fine by that.

Day one dlc is fine by me. I dont collect games and sell them. So giving me dlc in 6 months after release is pointless. An with games like Fallout 2/Vegas and Oblivion/Skyrim, i would rather have that content while im playing the game than download it and playing it with a high level character. So in those case, like Skyrim, i will just wait for the special edition.

Although, some have abused DLC. Like the CoD maps that cost $15. Or the skins etc for GoW.


New member
Apr 9, 2008
I also think that most dlc is overpriced and not very good but I feel that way about most games overall.

I too will have to defend BL2 here. The thing is that if you don't get any dlc at all, you still have a very meaty game well worth the $60. I don't know if it's still available but they let you buy all the story dlc for a good price with that season pass, and I'm usually not a fan of season pass. And even if you buy them separately, you get a lot of content for $10: new maps, story, loot, raid bosses, and other random weirdness like eridium slot machines & treasure rooms. I hear that the post season pass dlc will be even cheaper.

R* has had some weird dlc practices this gen. I felt that @$20, the dlc for gta4 was really overpriced. What really annoys me are games like LA Noir. When that launched it had different portions of actual gameplay auctioned off to like 4 or 5 different retailers as pre-order "bonuses." Not only is that quite a bit of day 1 dlc, there was no way for anyone to get the complete game from the start.

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
Depends on the proportion of DLC for me, and it has become a pretty significant reason why I wait for any game that will have DLC (it's safe to assume games will now unless the developer specifically states otherwise).

Not every company treats their DLC policy the same either so there's that to consider.

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
SonOfVoorhees said:
Although, some have abused DLC. Like the CoD maps that cost $15. Or the skins etc for GoW.
On the particular note of CoD maps, I really don't mind paying say $10 for 5 very high quality maps. What tends to happen though is $15 for 3 mediocre to piss-poor maps and/or outright reskins of old maps.

Particularly guilty of that are Treyarch, because their map design outside of the base maps for the original Black Ops and some very solid work in World at War has become "middle lane and two flanks" with maybe some hills or rooms crossing one lane to another.

MOdern Warfare 2 had some very good DLC maps but after that the series mostly has had very poor DLC packs.

OT: It depends on what it is and how well it's made, like I said I don't mind $10 for 5 good maps with some variety and good constructions and unique layouts, I do mind paying $15 for regurgitated crap and a split playerbase.

Also costume DLC needs to fuck off.

So does having 5 different pre-order bonuses that include things that give others an advantage on day one. I'm looking at Battlefield for this, as with BF3 it's crimes were particularly agregious.


New member
Apr 16, 2009
I think DLC is completely out of hand. I was ok with it when people would make suggestions to the devs about what to add to the game, and then the devs would add that as DLC. I am not ok with it existing as it currently does, purposely not adding content into the game so the can sell it later at an exaggerated price as DLC.
Apr 5, 2008
SkarKrow said:
On the particular note of CoD maps, I really don't mind paying say $10 for 5 very high quality maps. What tends to happen though is $15 for 3 mediocre to piss-poor maps and/or outright reskins of old maps.
Now this to me is possibly the worst that the gaming industry has done. The only reason I didn't mention it is because I can't stand MMSs and so this abhorrent practice has and will never affect me. You need to see this from a different point of view for a moment. Every other shooter that *isn't* CoD (or a CoD wannabe) has given their maps away for free for the most part. Not only that, but we've traditionally been able to host our own servers with our own map rotations.

In the example of every shooter that isn't CoD, we can choose what maps, when and everyone can play them. Now, by charging for these packs and further, removing entirely our ability to host our own servers, we have to play on official servers which likely have these paid maps in the rotation. So player A who has the pack gets to play but player B who does not is unable to. This has segmented the community which is a greivous crime.

Further, they are exceptionally overpriced and worse still, Activision have somehow managed to convince the CoD playing millions to rebuy the same title with an incrememnted number every November, making the previous game and its insanely priced maps obsolete. TF2 has been around for many years, Unreal Tournament, Quake 2 & 3 and Half-life 1 & 2, CS and many others have or were around for many, many years and in TF2's case, will continue to be. Years.

Every single facet of the CoD cash-cow and its related practices is vile and money-grubbing of the highest order. The removal of private servers, the segmentation of the player base, the crazy cost relative to the actual content, the removal of the tools for player-made maps (some of the best ever maps were player made), the annual rehash requiring rebuying the same game, even adding a "value added" elite subscription service on top and worse still, Activision's uncanny ability to somehow convince gamers that this is acceptable and the gamers who encourage such behaviour all adds up to the biggest rip off and money-grab in the industry's history.

If I was an Activision executive officer though, I'd love every minute of it. Most money for least work, no wonder every other publisher tries to mimic it.


New member
May 18, 2013
TK421 said:
I think DLC is completely out of hand. I was ok with it when people would make suggestions to the devs about what to add to the game, and then the devs would add that as DLC. I am not ok with it existing as it currently does, purposely not adding content into the game so the can sell it later at an exaggerated price as DLC.
It's a slap in the face to hear a dev say that they have 2 years of DLC planned before the game is released.