How do you feel about DLC?
- Thread starter Kif
- Start date
Recommended Videos
DLC stands for DownLoadable Content. You can call them expansion packs, that don't come in a box, but you download them. For money. I personally hate the idea of having to pay for them. Even more so when they are console exclusive! Seriously Prince of Persia and GTA IV, wtf?!Headshot Gamer UK said:
I have no problem with it, as long as the DLC isn't required to play a game. For example, Halo 3 has put out 3 map packs since it's release. One is now free, but as far as I am aware you still have to pay for the other 2. This would be fine if all 3 weren't required to play online (and let's be honest, Halo 3 is pretty much just a Multiplayer game). I may be mistaken but I believe there is only one game type in which all three DLC's aren't required. Please note: I am not trying to turn this thread into a Halo flamewar. This is just the best example I could think of.
Other than that, I like DLC. When done right, I think it is a good way to get more out of a game.
Other than that, I like DLC. When done right, I think it is a good way to get more out of a game.
I like DLC's that expand the main story line, IF the story line was resolved, i.e. Fallout 3's broken steel. I do not like DLC's which are necesarry for the complition of the game, i.e. Prince of Persia. What I really hate are DLC's that are just supposed to "look cool" i.e. Oblivion's costume pack. The only exeption to this whole reply is Fallout 3's "Mothership Zeta" which is about ALIENS IN POST-APOCALITIA!!!!!
DLC is awesome in theory. In practice it's been a great way for companies to rip off consumers. Before DLC you would not see a predominately multiplayer game coming out with only 5 or 6 maps, now that's all we see. And if you don't want to buy the new maps, you'll be booted and excluded from servers with people who do until the only way to play without changing servers every few minutes is to purchase the map-pack. Never mind that the game would be improved 100 times over if they just let people make and use their own maps, rather than imposing this frigid monopoly on content.
Fucking Activision.
And fucking Guerilla expecting people to pay actual money for just two new maps.
Fucking Activision.
And fucking Guerilla expecting people to pay actual money for just two new maps.
It`s that it was a two-dollar DLC for an extremely cosmetic function that may or may have not originally been in the game.Symp4thy said:
Of course, it may have been absolutely buggy when it was originally in the game leading to it`s removal, but no one ever thinks of that.
Orrery was a simlar story.
DLC is good because it allows newer, updated game content for a game that isn't as new. Also DLC gives the developers a chance to fix some things with the original game. It also lets developers focus on gameplay mechanics/story/other core game content without having to worry about side content. The only problem with DLC is that you sometimes pay more for content that should be cheaper or free.
GTA's DLC TLAD (most consecutive acronyms ever) wasn't even that long. I beat it in a few hours and ended up with all of the achievements but one.
I say stop releasing half-assed games. DLC shouldn't be an excuse to release a lower-than-average game and expect consumers to wait for that content.
DLC it self is fine. If the developers have multiple ideas and can't fit it all into one game, that's fine (i.e. Fallout 3). But they do need to make some of it worth our money. All the DLC for Skate 2 for example was a waste of money, but I like the game so I paid for it anyway.
I say stop releasing half-assed games. DLC shouldn't be an excuse to release a lower-than-average game and expect consumers to wait for that content.
DLC it self is fine. If the developers have multiple ideas and can't fit it all into one game, that's fine (i.e. Fallout 3). But they do need to make some of it worth our money. All the DLC for Skate 2 for example was a waste of money, but I like the game so I paid for it anyway.