Gaming has recently come to the point where, when you buy an online multiplayer game, you may end up spending almost the same price for the game itself on DLC. Here's an example, Call of Duty: World At War. Now, let's assume it went out to begin with for 40 Pounds (sorry if you're not British). So far, three DLC packs have been released, totalling a price of 24 pounds (apparently, correct me if i'm wrong). I know it's not compulsary to buy it, but I don't really want to be left behind while people I play online with enjoy the new maps. It just made me think about whether or not companies who are focusing on multiplayer should be allowed to release so much DLC, because pretty much what they're doing is asking us to pay more and more money for content that should really have been in the game. But what do you guys think?
Poll: DLC or not?
- Thread starter SomethingUnrelated
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't mind when it's an add-on that was released much later than the game itself. It's less annoying than a sequel, less annoying than a delayed release. But if it was released at the same time as the game and they're just trying to squeeze more money out of you, that is plain cheap.
well, at least you can still do 4 player campaign on WaW without DLC (Not counting Nazi Zombies.)
hell, I don't really care, if the maps look any good, I'll buy the damn things.
sometimes it's worth it.
sometimes.
hell, I don't really care, if the maps look any good, I'll buy the damn things.
sometimes it's worth it.
sometimes.
I liked the way Halo 3 handled extra maps; release them as DLC and let the "hardcore", "MLG", srs bizness gamers pay for them, then let the rest of us download them for free a few months later. Hardcore players feel justified in their purchase because they've had months of play on the new maps and therefore know them better, thus allowing them to "pwn", while more casual players get the experience of playing on the new maps without having to pay for them.
This would make sense in theory, but the huge ***** slap that Bungie did with the Mythic was release it, not give it out for free, and force anyone who doesn't have it to play social slayer or social skirmish.Space Spoons said:
I had a lvl 45 in Team Slayer, but didn't want to buy Mythic. I tried the maps at a friends and I just didn't like them. I didn't want to spend ten bucks on maps i don't want, but Bungie makes it so that you can't play any of the ranked playlists without this map pack. That basically got me off of Halo and on to TF2 because Valves aren't jerks about DLC.
The problem with the whole "it should have been included in the game" argument with regards to multiplayer maps (and other content made after the game's release) is that, if developers did included the extra maps with game, then you'd have lots of people complaining about the game's release being delayed for a couple of months while the developers make the extra multiplayer maps.
People who by the game for single player would resent the game being delayed just so that the developers can include some extra multiplayer maps that they'll never use.
It seems to me that gamers want to have their cake and eat it. They complain when the release of a game is delayed for what ever reason, but they also expect additional content to be included in the initial release... like they think the developers have some sort of magical time machine with which they can release a game, view how the online maps are being played and received, make additional maps to cater to the trends they're seeing, then go back in time with these new maps and release them with the game.
It's they same when people say that issues only discovered after the game's release and hundreds of thousands of people start playing it online, should have been patched before it was released.
How? No matter how great you think you're favourite developer is, they're not omniscient.
I'm also aware of the other side of this argument, the whole 'nickel and dime' trick that some publishers do when the content is actually on the disc, but locked.
Publishers who, at a later date, charge extra for 88kb files are shits, and part of reason why some people seem to be so un-accepting of DLC and obtuse in their understanding of the development process.
People who by the game for single player would resent the game being delayed just so that the developers can include some extra multiplayer maps that they'll never use.
It seems to me that gamers want to have their cake and eat it. They complain when the release of a game is delayed for what ever reason, but they also expect additional content to be included in the initial release... like they think the developers have some sort of magical time machine with which they can release a game, view how the online maps are being played and received, make additional maps to cater to the trends they're seeing, then go back in time with these new maps and release them with the game.
It's they same when people say that issues only discovered after the game's release and hundreds of thousands of people start playing it online, should have been patched before it was released.
How? No matter how great you think you're favourite developer is, they're not omniscient.
I'm also aware of the other side of this argument, the whole 'nickel and dime' trick that some publishers do when the content is actually on the disc, but locked.
Publishers who, at a later date, charge extra for 88kb files are shits, and part of reason why some people seem to be so un-accepting of DLC and obtuse in their understanding of the development process.
If it doesn't divide the community and force you to pay extortionate prices, why not? LBP's good for it; the extra gameplay features are fully usable in other peoples levels but you can't use them yourself. However, they're very reasonably priced, so there's no need to pay ridiculous amounts of cash to play (i.e. CoD WAW).
Exactly! Before consoles had Internet connections I remember all add-ons where free.Reuq said:
Made because game devs wanted to keep their game interesting, or make it even better.
If they had a LOT of awesome new content they'd bring it out as an expansion, separating it from the original... Good times!
Used to be free. Epic wanted Gears DLC to be free originally, but MS poo-pooed the idea, wanting to gouge, milk, and otherwise due monetary harm to our wallets.
I'm all for DLC, as long as it's either free or truly worth my cash (in which most cases it's not)
I'm all for DLC, as long as it's either free or truly worth my cash (in which most cases it's not)
I agree with you completely on this one. Every time I told my old housemate that there was new WaW DLC coming, he would say "oh for fuck's sake...Andy! New Maps!" and then proceed to get out his wallet to buy them.
He had the same reason, if you're in a series of games, you'll get kicked for not having the same maps as them, and he then said "this game's costing me close to a hundred quid!"
I don't think they should do it. From a business standpoint, multiplayer DLC is flippin' genius, but from a consumer standpoint it's cruel. It should be timed in terms of cost.
He had the same reason, if you're in a series of games, you'll get kicked for not having the same maps as them, and he then said "this game's costing me close to a hundred quid!"
I don't think they should do it. From a business standpoint, multiplayer DLC is flippin' genius, but from a consumer standpoint it's cruel. It should be timed in terms of cost.
Gah! I've stuck with DLCs that weren't map packs, but goddamn... They seriously want you to pay ten bucks for 3 multiplayer maps!? If it was three maps for 80 points, then that might be reasonable, hell, even 160, but to charge the same amount for three multiplayer maps that it costs to buy Shadow Complex? The hell?sethzard said:
Free DLC is the way forward, but everyone is too money grabbing bar like bioware and valve who actually like gamers and don't want to punish them.