Poll: Acceptable DLC Practices

[Fappy]

It's been awhile since we've had a good ol' DLC discussion around here, so let's have at it!

Like many of you, I never used to have a problem with DLC back in the day. It used to just be expansion packs like Morrowind's Tribunal or WoW's Burning Crusade. That stuff was legit, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about them. Sometime later we started getting Horse armor DLC and then we got hats... and then we started getting day-1 party members like Javik in Mass Effect 3 and "Disk Locked Content" (GG Capcom, you fucks). It was a slippery slope that got really slippery, really fast.

After a lot of backlash many companies started reevaluating their DLC policies. Some got worse (EA) and some got better (Bethesda). Nintendo had at one time said "no DLC", but then started selling DLC when they realized how lucrative it is. Some people saw it as a betrayal, and maybe it was, but their DLC policies are far from the worst so it's hard for me to give them shit for it.

Personally I don't mind DLC under reasonable circumstances. I condemn Day-1 DLC and especially despise "Disk Locked Content", but DLC like the packs Mario Kart 8 are putting out? I think I can get behind that. There's a difference between bleeding customers for all their worth and supporting a game months or years after launch. It's a fine line to walk, but I think it's worth the risks.

What do you guys think?

 

[Zhukov]

Anything goes as far as I'm concerned.

Let us take what folks seem to regard as the absolute worst case scenario: content deemed "important to the core experience" is cut out and then sold as Day-1 on-disc DLC that is unlocked with a purchasable code.

That's effectively just a price hike. And while having prices go up sucks, it isn't the blow against the fucking inherent freedoms of the human race that people paint it as.

If people are willing to pay for something, especially a non-vital luxury item, then that thing is, by definition, not overpriced or unreasonable. People are demonstrably willing to pay for DLC. If people truly thought DLC practices were extravagant then they wouldn't be throwing money at them.

 

[DataSnake]

I think after the game ships, cosmetic DLC is a good way to keep the art department busy and the bean counters happy while the programming team fixes bugs.

 

[Starbird]

I hate DLC. I used to love it when expansion packs required devs to at least put half an effort into making a valuable and rewarding game.

 

[Erttheking]

I feel like the Fallout 3 and New Vegas model is pretty ideal and fair. Wait a few months and release a complete independent experience that adds to the game and doesn't feel cut off.

 

[Fappy]

I think after the game ships, cosmetic DLC is a good way to keep the art department busy and the bean counters happy while the programming team fixes bugs.

It used to be that they'd just work on extra content and/or polish the art assets under the original game's budget. The concept of a "DLC" budget seems somewhat disingenuous when the core game's still in development. I don't really have a problem with it in theory, but I think a lot of publishers/developers could be more consumer friendly about how they handle early DLC content. Retailer exclusive DLC is an example of how not to do it, imo.

Looking at you Hyrule Warriors!

 

[shrekfan246]

If people are willing to pay for something, especially a non-vital luxury item, then that thing is, by definition, not overpriced or unreasonable. People are demonstrably willing to pay for DLC. If people truly thought DLC practices were extravagant then they wouldn't be throwing money at them.

In general I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think it's really quite so cut-and-dry as that.

Obviously, as a whole, people who play games don't seem to have too big an issue with most forms of DLC. That is evident by the fact that many of those methods still remain successful ways for a publisher to release DLC.

However... the vocal minority shouldn't always be entirely ignored simply because they're the minority. A lot of people don't buy DLC because they do think it's unreasonable; the problem is that the publishers don't care about them because they're still raking in cash from the people who don't care. Not that I really can come up with any way of changing that dynamic, because the only thing that will make people who don't currently care about DLC care about it in the future is a publisher suddenly doing something they don't agree with.

That having been said, I don't actually have an issue with most forms of DLC myself, because unlike apparently many other people on the internet I haven't seen many actual examples of a publisher literally cutting a piece of the game out just to sell it back later. There are a few select examples, but hardly anything noteworthy. Locking characters behind a preorder or "buy it new or pay an extra $10!!!!" paywall are things I absolutely will not support, though. With, of course, the only problem being that if I happen to purchase the game new anyway there's nothing I can do to voice my displeasure at the business practice other than posting what could be construed as a hypocritical point on an internet forum.

If it's evident that a game is going to have a significant amount of DLC released for it, though, I'll generally wait until the compilation edition that contains the base game + all DLC is released. Dunno if that's better or worse, to be honest, but it tends to save me money.

 

[Spanglish Guy]

I'm fine with reasonably priced DLC a couple months after the game is released and if they don't overdo the amount of DLC too. But day one stuff just feels like it has been cut out for the express purpose of making a bit of extra cash along with the sale of a game, I sometime let non important day one DLC slide but anything that can matter to the game is just unacceptable.

 

[Morgoth780]

I really miss expansions. Those were great. I'd much rather have a well thought out expansion with lots of effort put into as opposed to the vast quantities of small DLC packs that some games get. Skyrim I think did a great job with DLC/Expansions. I really liked Dawnguard, even though I think it would have been nice to have some more content for it. Dragonborn, of course, was incredible. I really liked Hearthfire, especially since it was priced accordingly. It had the least content of the three, but it definitely doesn't feel like an incomplete experience without it. Plus Bethesda didn't release tons of DLCs like Hearthfire, I'd be ok with 1-3 with small features like that.

 

[Fappy]

I really miss expansions. Those were great. I'd much rather have a well thought out expansion with lots of effort put into as opposed to the vast quantities of small DLC packs that some games get. Skyrim I think did a great job with DLC/Expansions. I really liked Dawnguard, even though I think it would have been nice to have some more content for it. Dragonborn, of course, was incredible. I really liked Hearthfire, especially since it was priced accordingly. It had the least content of the three, but it definitely doesn't feel like an incomplete experience without it. Plus Bethesda didn't release tons of DLCs like Hearthfire, I'd be ok with 1-3 with small features like that.

I agree that Skyrim did a fantastic job with its DLC. It kind of went back to basics and did what Morrowind did. They even poked fun at themselves on multiple occasions regarding the horse armor DLC.

 

[Danny Dowling]

i remember reading that the guys that made Velocity 2X actually started work on their DLC after the game was submitted. not only did i really appreciate their honesty and respect them for that, but I also think that that's absolutely fine.

But when a game that is literally just announced and get's a DLC mention months before release? No, get the fuck out.

Tekken Tag 2 gave players a lot of new characters through DLC, they were all free. The thing that Tekken Tag 2 did offer that wasn't free was sound tracks from other previous Tekken games to use instead of the TTT2 soundtrack. That, again, is fine (it was also something that was added a while after release).

The issue with the whole DLC thing is that devs are using it as an excuse to leech extra money from the consumer. Release 80% of your game and then release the extra 20% later on as DLC. Make the consumer feel like they're getting more content for their game after the games release so they feel special, devs don't have to do shit.

It, along with pre-orders, is a perfect example of a good idea used and abused by the people in power. it's wrong.

 

[sageoftruth]

Anything goes as far as I'm concerned.

Let us take what folks seem to regard as the absolute worst case scenario: content deemed "important to the core experience" is cut out and then sold as Day-1 on-disc DLC that is unlocked with a purchasable code.

That's effectively just a price hike. And while having prices go up sucks, it isn't the blow against the fucking inherent freedoms of the human race that people paint it as.

If people are willing to pay for something, especially a non-vital luxury item, then that thing is, by definition, not overpriced or unreasonable. People are demonstrably willing to pay for DLC. If people truly thought DLC practices were extravagant then they wouldn't be throwing money at them.

I've got nothing for now. You've got a good point. The problem I see now is simply game exclusivity. Being the sole provider of a certain game is basically having a monopoly. Competing sellers of the same game, trying to outdo each other with the least offensive DLC could make things take a turn for the better, but I don't really know how that works.

 

[Mezahmay]

I'm just going to go with the crowd and say that DLC that actually adds content with substance in it is a good way to do DLC, like Skyrim and Fallout 3 and NV did. That feels like a good trade-off to me if the content is good enough. Mass Effect 3's day one DLC with the Prothean is definitely NOT the right way to go about doing it since that was story content for a race integral to that universe. That feels like it took development time before the rest of the game was finished. Double-dipping like that is bullshit. Cosmetic DLC and map packs are fine as long as they're priced proportional to the actual content they contain. I guess I'm fine with DLC in general as long as it doesn't rob from the day one experience and isn't inappropriately priced.

A thought occurred to me when typing this out, what about game sequels that use the same engine as the previous game or another game by the developer? Would that still count as some weird form of DLC? I think that can be used to good effect when it's used like LoZ:MM or Fallout:NV when it alters enough of the content to feel new.

[sub]I can't wait for someone like EA to have the gall to charge money for a patch that does nothing but fix bugs. I'd pay to see gamers react to that. [/sub]

 

[Bad Jim]

The problem I see now is simply game exclusivity. Being the sole provider of a certain game is basically having a monopoly. Competing sellers of the same game, trying to outdo each other with the least offensive DLC could make things take a turn for the better, but I don't really know how that works.

Least offensive DLC? If I'm selling such a game, my DLC will be something awesome that means you have to buy from me. And every other vendor will be thinking the same thing. So the exclusive DLC will be better than the main game and you'll have to buy ten copies to get the full experience.

I think there was a Jimquisition episode on this issue with exclusive DLC.

 

[The Lunatic]

Quite a few months after launch.

Ideally in the form of an expansion pack which increases the content in a game in proportion to the price being asked.

 

[Ticklefist]

I am fine with any DLC that comes out at any time so long as my game is still whole without it. Selling me add-ons is fine. Selling me withheld content is not.

 

[kasperbbs]

I like how Bethesda does it with TES and Fallout DLC, day1 DLC and retailer exclusive content can go F themselves.

 

[Pyrian]

I think the acceptability of DLC is its value, not when or even how it's released. The business metrics for early DLC are hard to argue with; bluntly, people buy less DLC for games they've moved on from, then games they're currently playing or just finished. So, you lose a lot of DLC sales by not releasing it soon after launch (especially for short games, I suspect).

So, if the game is worthwhile and the DLC is worthwhile, then what does it matter when it comes out? Release it before the game for all I care.

 

[small]

the best way ive seen to handle DLC is in the wargame european escalation/red dragon by eugen. extra units and maps, sometimes an extra campaign, which is always free

otherwise im fine with DLC being small cosmetic stuff, etc. the sorts of things that dont really add things much. possible in the example of a fantasy rpg adding a small cave or dungeon at most.

more than that and id prefer to see expansions. the disadvantage of DLC is that its really cut back on expansions which means in only rare cases do you get meaty content added after release

 

[Jupsto]

I don't think any DLC has ever been worth buying. Its always a shallow money grab. I always wait for cheap GOTY edition if there is good DLC, which is basically never.