Poll: Do you buy DLC?
- Thread starter NickCaligo42
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I sometimes buy the DLC that continue the story mode or something. The best examples I can think of are the three REAL Borderlands DLC...Undead Nightmare.... Though I did end up getting the LA Noire DLC, which I haven't played yet, but am worried it wasn't worth the money...
I only buy DLC that drastically changes the game for the better. Stuff like Broken Steel for Fallout 3, or the Ultra upgrade for Beat Hazard.
Besides songs for Rock Band, that's literally all the DLC I've ever bought.
Besides songs for Rock Band, that's literally all the DLC I've ever bought.
I'll be honest here. If I finish a game, I'll buy every content-related (not cosmetic) DLC I can get my hands on. Even if it's bad, I feel like I really haven't finished a game until I finish its expansions, no matter how small, overpriced, or inferior they may be.
I definitely buy DLC if I bought the game used. If I bought the game new, I usually only buy DLC if it's something multiplayer and I have friends getting it, or if it just looks too badass to pass up.
Or there are some games where I just can not mentally pass up gameplay DLC, such as Mass Effect 1/2. Even though the 5-10 dollar missions are beatable in 15-60 minutes, I need to get my lore and fresh gameplay fix.
I don't buy avatar items, themes, in game skins, or other useless junk. My money is too sacred to waste on silly things...(TF2 hats excluded)
Or there are some games where I just can not mentally pass up gameplay DLC, such as Mass Effect 1/2. Even though the 5-10 dollar missions are beatable in 15-60 minutes, I need to get my lore and fresh gameplay fix.
I don't buy avatar items, themes, in game skins, or other useless junk. My money is too sacred to waste on silly things...(TF2 hats excluded)
I buy DLC if I like the game enough and it expands the original product in story or universe. (Heavy Rain Chronicles, Shivering Isles, etc.) I'd put the Fallout 3 DLC in there too, but I got fed up with the game when the AI bugged out during Broken Steel so now I can't continue without starting a new game. That's the one exception where I didn't buy expansive DLC. EDIT: I didn't get Borderlands DLC either. But I'm still stuck on the final boss, so...
Things like Prince of Persia Epilogue DLC are bullshit, because I know they just tagged that onto the end. Especially with the end-game trophy being called "To be continued...." C'mon Ubisoft. Don't be a dick. But I bought that anyway because I'm dumb. Game wasn't even that good. But I had to know how it ended.
Generally, since I'm broke and without stable income, I'll forego DLC like maps, costumes, or other things I don't need to enjoy the game to the full extent. A dollar for new costume colors? No thank you.
Things like Prince of Persia Epilogue DLC are bullshit, because I know they just tagged that onto the end. Especially with the end-game trophy being called "To be continued...." C'mon Ubisoft. Don't be a dick. But I bought that anyway because I'm dumb. Game wasn't even that good. But I had to know how it ended.
Generally, since I'm broke and without stable income, I'll forego DLC like maps, costumes, or other things I don't need to enjoy the game to the full extent. A dollar for new costume colors? No thank you.
I look at it very carefully, how much do I play the game? If I tend to play it a lot then sometimes I will, map packs are usually the easiest thing to sell me though I don't always buy them. Otherwise I tend to stay away from it, last DLC I bought was for Hot Pursuit Lamborghini Unleashed I think ... besides I like having a virtual Diablo SV cause I know I'll never have one lol
I am an RPG fan. I will buy DLC that extends the story.
So, for Mass Effect 2, I bought Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival.
I don't tend to buy extra characters or armor or weapons.
Since I'm not that big of a FPS'er, map packs and the like, I don't get, because I'm not all that interested.
I don't have anything against DLC. I don't buy everything, and when I do buy DLC, it tends to be things that are meaty and well reviewed. Also, though I didn't buy the horse armor, it doesn't offend me that it exists.
So, for Mass Effect 2, I bought Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival.
I don't tend to buy extra characters or armor or weapons.
Since I'm not that big of a FPS'er, map packs and the like, I don't get, because I'm not all that interested.
I don't have anything against DLC. I don't buy everything, and when I do buy DLC, it tends to be things that are meaty and well reviewed. Also, though I didn't buy the horse armor, it doesn't offend me that it exists.
I have bought all the DLCs of Halo 3 and Halo Reach,and COD 6 Resurgence and that COD 7 map pack with Call of the Dead in it. The halo 3 map packs were all fun for me at the time, because I loved the Heroic map packs foundry for forging, and I super-loved Mythic map packs sandbox for it. I liked rat's nest, too. However, the legendary map pack didn't introduce much forging stuff, but it was still good because of Avalanche. Halo Reach map packs I didn't like as much because although forge world was super mega awesome, no new forging maps and items were introduced. Some of the maps were OK, and some were really good, like that Invasion map from the first DLC.
Call of Duty maps packs, however, did not please me at all. Like I said, I had the COD 6 resurgence map pack and the COD 7 map pack I forgot the name of (it had Call of the Dead.) The Call of Duty DLCs were lame to me because not only were there no cool additions like new types of grenades or new titles and emblems (which I don't even care much about,) but the map designs were just boring. Both Carnival from COD 6 and Zoo from COD 7 were grim-looking and colorless when both maps could have been better looking. I know colorful isn't exactly COD's style, but come on! The only map I liked out of both DLCs was vacant, and that was a remake from COD 4!! The one thing they should have done in COD 6 was make included Special Ops missions. I loved those!
I may not be the biggest COD zombies fan, nor a good COD zombies player either, but from playing all the COD zombies maps (discluding the new Shangri-La map,) I think Kino Der Toten and the first zombies map from COD 5 were waaaaaaaaaaaaay better than it. Call of the Dead was too linear at parts, making it easy to get cornered by zombies. George A. Romero was funny to see in in Call of the Dead, but him as an annoying zombie boss pissed me off, not because I don't like seeing people who have never heard of him kill him on round 27, but the fact of how HUGE electric studio light V.S. linear hallways = BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!! They should have made it "Call off the Dead" (teehee!)
In conclusion to my long rant about DLCs (especially COD,) I have decided DLCs are good, as long as they don't cost $15.00 and include crappy maps. I'm looking at you, Infinity Ward and Treyarch!
Call of Duty maps packs, however, did not please me at all. Like I said, I had the COD 6 resurgence map pack and the COD 7 map pack I forgot the name of (it had Call of the Dead.) The Call of Duty DLCs were lame to me because not only were there no cool additions like new types of grenades or new titles and emblems (which I don't even care much about,) but the map designs were just boring. Both Carnival from COD 6 and Zoo from COD 7 were grim-looking and colorless when both maps could have been better looking. I know colorful isn't exactly COD's style, but come on! The only map I liked out of both DLCs was vacant, and that was a remake from COD 4!! The one thing they should have done in COD 6 was make included Special Ops missions. I loved those!
I may not be the biggest COD zombies fan, nor a good COD zombies player either, but from playing all the COD zombies maps (discluding the new Shangri-La map,) I think Kino Der Toten and the first zombies map from COD 5 were waaaaaaaaaaaaay better than it. Call of the Dead was too linear at parts, making it easy to get cornered by zombies. George A. Romero was funny to see in in Call of the Dead, but him as an annoying zombie boss pissed me off, not because I don't like seeing people who have never heard of him kill him on round 27, but the fact of how HUGE electric studio light V.S. linear hallways = BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!! They should have made it "Call off the Dead" (teehee!)
In conclusion to my long rant about DLCs (especially COD,) I have decided DLCs are good, as long as they don't cost $15.00 and include crappy maps. I'm looking at you, Infinity Ward and Treyarch!
I usually wait for a complete edition. My least favourite DLC has to be Call of Duty DLC.
So, I paid $99 AUD for the game (Australians get rorted over game pricing, last I checked, the Australian dollar traded for more than 1 US dollar, and you still pay $60, you lucky devils). Say, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I enjoyed the game, I had a blast, and the developer made a profit.
Then they release, for $15 AUD a map pack containing 5 maps. I already paid for 2 of these maps in the previous game, where they were packaged with it or included in free DLC. So I'm paying them for a texture pack and 3 maps. That's 15% of the price of the game. For which I get 3 maps. For the original game I got a 7 hour or so campaign, plus the Co-Op missions, and the purchase of these covered there developement costs. The maps can only be played on special modes, restricting my play. All in all, I'd say there's less than 15% of the content of the original. And I know it didn't take them 15% of the work, in fact, some of it took close to none.
I hate it when they do that.
The only good DLC I've seen adds significant amounts to a game (Campaigns etc for Fallout etc) or stuff which is innocuous, and the game can be played, missing no content at all, without the purchase of (Portal 2 Hats and Getures).
So, I paid $99 AUD for the game (Australians get rorted over game pricing, last I checked, the Australian dollar traded for more than 1 US dollar, and you still pay $60, you lucky devils). Say, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I enjoyed the game, I had a blast, and the developer made a profit.
Then they release, for $15 AUD a map pack containing 5 maps. I already paid for 2 of these maps in the previous game, where they were packaged with it or included in free DLC. So I'm paying them for a texture pack and 3 maps. That's 15% of the price of the game. For which I get 3 maps. For the original game I got a 7 hour or so campaign, plus the Co-Op missions, and the purchase of these covered there developement costs. The maps can only be played on special modes, restricting my play. All in all, I'd say there's less than 15% of the content of the original. And I know it didn't take them 15% of the work, in fact, some of it took close to none.
I hate it when they do that.
The only good DLC I've seen adds significant amounts to a game (Campaigns etc for Fallout etc) or stuff which is innocuous, and the game can be played, missing no content at all, without the purchase of (Portal 2 Hats and Getures).
Depends what the DLC is, honestly. I'm not going to buy some cosmetic stuff, but I will buy other things. I don't buy COD DLC though, I should get that shit for free, like back with 4.
Yea, why not? If I play a game, beat a game, and enjoy a game, why not pay a little more to get more out of it? Ofcourse this depends on what sorts of DLC. Stuff like weapon/costume packs I don't look twice at, whereas map packs, additional campaigns/missions and characters, then I atleast think about it.
I was really happy that Obsidian went ahead with Fallout: NV DLC. I love the new add-ons - they add to the world and story. To be fair though, the base game is pretty cool by itself, although they should offer the DLCs on disk so they're more accessible (aka used). (I know some games later on come packaged with them - I guess you'll just have to wait.)
If a game is worth it, I buy it, in the way the market has worked for centuries. If later a DLC comes along and it appears to be worth the cash for the content, I buy it in the same fashion. For excellent games, this usually means I buy all the DLC that contains actual content. I buy missions and expansions, and ignore aesthetics, items, and map packs. Ive gotten DLC that wasn't worth the money before. At about the same rate and frequency, ive gotten GAMES that wern't worth the money. For me, DLC is just another way for me to get games and companies to make money, just with more variety in its execution. Bring on the DLC. If it isn't worth my time, I just won't buy it.
Well, not really, I usually wait for it to become free.
With the exception of Rockstar's magnum opus, Undead Nightmare.
That was definitely worth $15 Australian dollars.
With the exception of Rockstar's magnum opus, Undead Nightmare.
That was definitely worth $15 Australian dollars.
if its for a game i like and its not too much, i will more then glad to buy it. take Scott Pilgrim for example. i and my friends or my sister have run through the game 20 times and then run to do it again. i saw the Knives Chau expansion and i jumped on it like a pack of dogs on a 350lb llama and im happy i did
The Fallout 3 DLC was underwhelming, and the Dragon Age stuff was just a straight up waste of time.
The only DLC that I haven't regretted getting is Undead Nightmare, which was awesome. That's how DLC should be done; it takes us back to a familiar setting, but gives us something completely different to do with it. It wasn't enough to warrant a new game entirely, but it was more than a tacked-on half hour runthrough of old locations and gameplay with one or two new items.
The only DLC that I haven't regretted getting is Undead Nightmare, which was awesome. That's how DLC should be done; it takes us back to a familiar setting, but gives us something completely different to do with it. It wasn't enough to warrant a new game entirely, but it was more than a tacked-on half hour runthrough of old locations and gameplay with one or two new items.