Poll: Acceptable DLC Practices

[Evonisia]

If we disregard the quality, I am fine with DLC so long as they started making it after the game had finished development. It could be released a week after launch, it could be released three months after launch. I don't care so long as it wasn't on the disc.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

From a business perspective, the closer that DLC is released to opening day, the more it sells. People may hate Day 1 DLC but it sells quite well. Me, I prefer to have DLC every few months to keep me invested in a game and keep it fresh. Anything longer than a year and a half after release is unfavorable to me, as I am usually not on that game anymore and I won't know when I might pick it up again.

Though one thing I hate more than anything else is the store-exclusive stuff. Fuck you Gamestop.

 

[Trinket to Ride]

Cosmetic stuff is the best in my book, followed by bonus missions (as long as they're side-stories, not integral to the main plot.)

Doesn't matter much either way. I usually wait for the Game of the Year/Complete/Ultimate/Please Buy it Again Edition. Or a Steam sale when it's like $0.64 a pack.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

For me it isn't a question of when it is more what and how much it costs.

 

[Vausch]

I don't mind DLC as a concept and honestly I don't find a specific time lapse to be necessary. I'd say honestly a week at least would be good to wait, that way most of the fanbase has finished the game already if they made it their exclusive one for that time.

It was pointed out on Extra Credits that the reason we get Day 1 DLC is because the programmers and coders are often in need of something to do for a few months after the game is "finished", so they work on extra content if they don't get to move to a new project. It's also pointed out that the time it takes to release DLC and the likelihood people will buy it drops incredibly rapidly after the first week of the game's release, so it's partly understandable as to why they try to release the DLC as soon as possible.

That said though, I prefer if DLC is standalone content that doesn't feel like it was ripped from the original game to make a cash grab. Costumes and things like that in Saints Row 3 and 4 got me hating Volition since the cost of all the DLC wound up exceeding (almost doubling) that of the game itself on launch! That's just ridiculous.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm fine with most forms of DLC, except for "On-Disk DLC" or Disk-Locked Content as you called it, and I'm iffy about Day 1 DLC, but other that that I have few issues. I do have a problem when content has been obviously withheld from the initial release only to be sold later as DLC. I also take issue with stuff that used to come standard with games once upon a time now being sold separately as DLC.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

I don't particularly like the idea of any DLC really. An expansion I can get behind, something that can make a game worth re-releasing. Uncharted 2 was the game that made me think about it. I played that game several times on different difficulties just so I could fiddle with the skins, special weapons, and in game extras. That kind of game+ stuff is great to make a good game even more replayable. Its something they used to do a lot of but the trend died out after the ps2, gamecube, and xbox generation. Happily for me, Naughty Dog at least still this in LoU and I hope their future games. My point, is that I like these small extras as rewards, not "dlc". I just cannot bring myself to buy them unless they come in some "super special edition" of game I don't already own. Does it really cost a developer any time at all to reskin a character or add some weapons? It seems so exploitative, and I think it can at least diminish if not ruin a good. Dead Space 3 are victims of this. I played it for free on ps+ but everytime you start the game it tries to connect to EA online so it can sell me dlc. Literally the first thing that happens before you play the game is they try to sell you the parts they left out of it

 

[laggyteabag]

I don't care when as long as it isn't day 1, then it just feels like they actively cut something from the game to sell you later. Horrible, horrible practice.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

Came in here to say this. Found the orc had scooped me again.

Gettin' real tired of this, Zhukov. Get your own talking points!

 

[Mikeyfell]

Day 1 DLC should come free as a pre-order bonus.

All cosmetic DLC's should be free after 6 months

Buying a Season Pass must be a discount compared to buying all the DLC's individually.

No retailer exclusive DLC's. ever.
Beyond those 4 things I don't really care.
Most of the DLC I buy is good, so I don't mind paying a little more for a little extra content

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Please note: To me, DLC is an expansion on the single player experience or a bunch of maps (although I never buy new maps). Weapon and character skins aren't DLC to me.

I think DLC should come out a few months after the game is released. Give people a chance to enjoy the original game, and then when they've managed to play everything in it, give them something new. Mass Effect 2 did that pretty well I feel. I also like what Dark Souls II is doing with its DLC right now.

Releasing it too soon and it just sort of sinks into the game. Releasing it too late and people will most likely have moved on from the game.

 

[Leemaster777]

I used to really support it, but lately, I'm just so completely DONE with DLC. 90% of the DLC that gets slapped out nowadays just gets me mad.

Here's a list of DLC practices that immediately turn me off of a game:

Day 1 DLC - If it's available on day one, why the hell couldn't you ship it with the game in the first place?

Retailer-exclusive/timed exclusive DLC - You know, when I buy a game, especially a game where I might want to get everything in it, NOTHING is more annoying than finding out that certain content is no longer available, or it was ONLY available if you bought the game from a certain retailer. I GET that this is supposed to make people buy the games on launch day, and dissuade them from buying used, but what if, a year or two down the line, you want to buy a certain game, but now some content on that game is PERMANENTLY beyond your grasp? Double points if there are different DLC packs for different retailers.

On-Disc DLC - I. Fucking. HATE this. If that content is on the freaking disc, then by all accounts, I should be able to access it. I bought the game. I have it in my hands. The code for said content is literally a part of the disc that I own... except it's not unless I pay them MORE money. I'll be blunt, anyone who REFUSES to pay for on-disc DLC, and instead hacks the game to get it, I have no ill will towards you.

Content that sections off large parts of the main game - I'm looking at you, Catwoman story in Arkham City. You had NO business being DLC. Sure, I got you for free, but see my second point.

Now, on the flip side, here are DLC practices that I'm okay with:

Vanity items - No issues here. Not integral to beating the game, and you're probably not missing anything if you don't get it. HOWEVER, in games where vanity items are a large part of the game, there had DAMN WELL better be alot of it that I can freely unlock myself before I feel the need to start digging into the DLC. LittleBig Planet is a good example. Yeah, there's tons of DLC costumes, but there's a metric ton of costume options to unlock in the main game.

Expansion pack-styled DLC - The recent Fallouts, Skyrim, Borderlands, World of Warcraft, all of these are perfectly acceptable, as they're actually charging you for stuff that REALLY adds to your play experience.

Paying to unlock stuff in main game - Doesn't happen often, but I have no issue with the idea of paying money to unlock stuff in your own game. Granted, I wound never actually USE it, but having the option doesn't bother me. The upcoming powerleveling to 90 that WoW is going to do is an example of this that I'm okay with.

 

[RandV80]

My general rule of thumb as a PC gamer revolves around if the developer/publisher is cutting mod support to push their DLC, and completely drop expansion packs. Civilization V is a good example of acceptable practice, they released two full expansions that made significant changes to the core game and DLC is there for those who want to pay for them but there's also Steam Workshop support with way more mods available.

I got about 200 hours in on Vanilla Civ V + expansions, and another 500 and counting with mods. Don't break that cycle and I could care less about DLC.

 

[ElMinotoro]

I don't know if I have an opinion on the timing of the DLC, but I'm sick and tired of buying games that turn out to be platforms for selling DLC. Payday2, Borderlands 2, I'm looking at you.

 

[krazykidd]

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.

In that perticular case, why not just raise the price of games? Or do that one hypothetical company think their game is worth more than other games? What happens if someone doesn't have a stable internet connection to download the "rest" of the game?

Also isn't that just favoring people who have more money than others, to get the " full" package? Also it's not like there is a disclaimer on the box saying " internet connection and an extra 20$ is require to get the full experience". You can't really fault people for feelig cheated.

OT: never. If your game cannot warrant a full box release ( like an expansion) it's not worth my time/money.

 

[PinkiePyro]

I am actually ok with DLC as long as it is not on-disk DLC and of course you don't do the EA thing of chopping bits out of the game to sell later..

it should also be priced reasonably 20$+ is fine for a good expansion (such as Skyrim's dawnguard)
5$ to 20$ for little bits IF bundled (new weapon,pets, and other small bits)

5 and under for singular things (a hat, horse armor, etc)

 

[Battenberg]

Maybe a month or so I guess. If the game isn't good enough stick with me for a month the odds are I'm not going to be spending any more money on it. Plus when a developer releases day 1 dlc it tells me one of two things; either that is content that should have been in the main game or the developer expects people to have gotten all they're going to get out of it in 24 hours. Either way I'd be thinking twice about buying the main game, never mind spending even more money on extra content.

 

[DrOswald]

The acceptability of DLC to me is entirely based around worth. Day 1 dlc, on disc dlc, whatever. I don't care. If it is good content worth the price I am not against it. Frankly, I think it is entirely petty to begrudge a piece of DLC for the delivery method. There is no difference between on disc DLC, day 1 DLC, and 6 month DLC in my mind.

I only have problems with dlc under four circumstances, from least bad to most bad:

The game has locked all the fun extras behind DLC. Basically, the game is bare bones with the intent to nickel and dime you into spending $30 more.

The DLC is over costly.

The DLC compromises the core game design, especially if it is to the point where dlc is basically required to enjoy the game or should have been in the game to start with.

And, last of all and most important of all, don't put massive DLC hooks in your game. Like in Dragon Age? That one quest giver you talk to and he tells you about a quest and then BAM! Please buy our DLC to have fun!. SCREW YOU EA.

 

[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.

In that perticular case, why not just raise the price of games?

Good question. I suspect it's because customers, at least in the minds of vendors, are more likely to be put off by a raised price then by a regular price followed by an optional additional price.

Also because publishers/developers don't have to share DLC profits with retailers. Massive draw right there.

What happens if someone doesn't have a stable internet connection to download the "rest" of the game?

That's why it's on-disc! No hefty downloads, just an unlock code. Y'see, It's all about convenience for the customer!

Also isn't that just favoring people who have more money than others, to get the " full" package? Also it's not like there is a disclaimer on the box saying " internet connection and an extra 20$ is require to get the full experience". You can't really fault people for feelig cheated.

Dude, wut?

The entirety of human society favours people who have more money. It's like saying Ferrari favours people with more money by charging high prices for their cars, thus denying the poor people a full driving experience.

Hell, by your reasoning video games already "favour" people who can afford a console/TV or a decent PC.

 

[King of Asgaard]

I have an adverse reaction to most DLC. The entire practice has become unfortunately half-arsed.
I'd say the best DLC came from Dark Souls. Why? Because the developer expressly said that they would never make DLC, and only did because they felt they had to make it up to PC players for taking so long, and then released it for the console version. I was fine paying £10 for a large piece of content which added quite a bit to the overall experience.

This stands in stark contrast to Dark Souls 2, whose DLC not only came out 3 months after initial release, but 3 individual pieces were made and bundled with a fucking season pass. Fuck that noise. I haven't bought them, and I don't plan on it any time soon. If their priorities are on selling more content rather than patching the flaws in base game, they're not getting more of my cash.

I'd say that for DLC to be worth getting, it should be at least a year after the game originally launched. Less than that raises a red flag vis-a-vis quality.