Poll: The Problem with DLC Today

[SwiggleDyl]

Online passes make sense when you consider the amount of preowned games that developers don't get a return for, but they only make sense if a new copy comes with said online pass included. I'm all for the DLC which falls more into "Add-On" packs because it makes the game bigger and gives new things to go do, but when it's 1200 points for 4 maps I'm not going to buy it simply because I would get a lot more value from something like an XBLA game.

It does have it's advantages but consumers will continue to buy expensive DLC if the game is popular enough *shakes fist at Call of Duty* so in reality developers aren't going to have to change any time soon.

 

[cdstephens]

If they release a DLC free with a new copy of the game, that's perfectly OK. It's not their fault Gamestop is completely screwing over their industry.

DLC you have to pay for on Day 1, however, is ridiculous.

Really? You want dlc that is created six months after the games comes out to be included on the disk? How the hell are they going to do that?

It's not created six months later though is it? In all likelihood it's half, or even mostly finished by the time the game releases. It's only released six months later so the publisher can market it as "fresh" content, despite the fact that it was probably supposed to be on the retail release anyway, but now that publishers know they can get away with charging even more for games and their content, the developers either copped out of finishing it, or the publisher said "don't bother finishing it, we want to get it out in time for X and we can sell it as DLC anyway".

Do you have any proof for these accusations, or are you talking on the top of your head?

 

[GartarkMusik]

I don't have a problem with DLC as long as nothing important storywise is on it. *cough cough* ME: Arrival *cough cough*

 

[Aris Khandr]

First, all of you people who say "DLC is always a rip off" have obviously never played Rock Band. And for that, you should be sad.

That said, DLC is fine. Day one DLC tends to be free if you pre-order or buy the special edition. That's not punishing you for not, that's actually letting you not miss out on something if you decide you want it later. It's rarely vital, and a good way to reward people who bought the game early or bought the special version.

Online passes are also not a problem. If you don't want to pay for one, buy the game new. Problem solved. See also: this [http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/981438957_vPpv5-L.jpg] Penny Arcade strip.

I have, to date, never found a game that I felt was lacking at its core, and then they tried to sell that core back to me later. Not once.

 

[KRbertsproduck5]

I wish we can go back to the Share Ware days where dlc's were like a hole new game. Not 3 maps for game thats already finished. Not to mention the bull shit 15 bucks or what ever it is you guys pay. If you don't get what Im saying look at Fallout 3. Those dlc have not only another map, but a giant campaign for 15 bucks for all those hours of entertainment. Then look back at Call of Duty and Halo. 15 bucks for 3 or 4 maps that there's a high possibility aren't going to be played often.

 

[krazykidd]

I refuse to buy DLC in any shape or form, unless it's free. That's my stance on the subject.

This , i never ever buy dlc , i don't even look at dlc content, not because i might be inclined to buy it, but because i don't support it and don't care. Online Passes i don't agree with either , but i don't ever play online . I bought deadspace 2 for 20$ new last week , the online pass was in it so i could play multi-player , other than the fact that i don't care for multiplayer in DS2 , i didn't redeem it because i'm against the very essence of it . So even if i got it free i refused to even use it out of principle.

 

[Noel Vermillion]

Day 1 DLC should be free. Otherwise it's just silly.

I rarely buy DLC, though. I think a few LBP level kits and BlazBlue stuff and that's it.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

I hate when DLC is ready before release. Just put it in the game. I also don't like having to buy DLC just to finish a story but only fallout 3 is guilty of this and even then I would've liked some more closure with the super mutant problem. I know where they were coming from and had enough mini nukes to completely level vault 72 (i believe is where they came from). I just want a mission that starts by me telling elder lyons that i know where the mutants come from him saying that he has no suport for me and sending me to destroy the vault then clear out each and every mutant stronghold in the wasteland (meaning no respawning). Ok now that i think about it i just never wanted the game to end.

 

[mitchell271]

snip

Exactly my point. When they take stuff out (a la AC2 with Sequences 13-14 i think) and sell that too us later, that's the kind of thing I would expect from a game store run by Hitler

 

[FilipJPhry]

On launch, they should give you a code that enables you to get free future DLCs for the game. The CoD series did that, but made you pay an extra $40. If you missed the game at launch, tough luck. Pay for missing out on the game from the beginning. This means HUGE business and a guaranteed hit. Scumbag Activision is gonna charge you an extra $50 for the limited edition of MW3, which I admit, I will buy.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Somewhere between 1 and 2 companies actually release worthwhile DLC. I came up with Bethesda and Bethesda. Their additions to Fallout and Oblivion (horse-armor not withstanding) were genuinely engaging and provided value commensurate with their asking price.

Everyone else either doesn't sink enough into the content or charges way too much for it - or, in the case of Bioware, both.

To sum up: DLC was billed as fantastic new feature for consumers, giving our favorite games new and/or extended life. In pratice, DLC is just another revenue stream and/or tool in the ongoing battle against secondhand sales.

 

[phar]

Im a bit mixed when it comes to DLC in its current form. When you buy a full priced game it should have enough content, for example a decent number of multiplayer maps. If I then enjoy the game I dont mind spending a bit of money (a few dollars not $15 or whatever for the CoD packs) to get a few more down the track.

But when a full priced game comes with say 3 maps and they want you to pay for the rest that really annoys me.

DLC can be good if done right, but they are usually pretty rare examples. Such as GTA4, RDR and Mass Effect.

I dont get how people can say a game which has DLC shortly after release is unfinished. Im yet to find a game where I cant play from start to end with the complete story without buying the DLC. They have to release the DLC in a timeframe where the game is still in peoples minds, everyone has a short attention span these days.

 

[aprildog18]

There are some DLCs that I'm fine with, like Fallout 3

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Mass Effect 2 have a DLC (Arrival) and called it important to the story line? I thought that was lame that we had to pay extra for a possibly crucial part of the story.

That was like a big wtf for me.

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

I think for a game company to make a game, and have it viable enough to earn money into the future, then they need to pre-plan the DLC, and yes, they need DLC to keep the game alive and profitable. Day one DLC helps them get the people who are willing to pay for it, so they get extra money, and having the DLC already on the disk helps because whats more anoying, having it there ready to go when you buy it, or having to wait for it to download. Id prefer it to be there ready to go.

The extra money they make from day one DLC compared to the same DLC say, 3 months later, can go into developing more games, and helps to make the game instantly more profitable, its a win - win for gamers and developers

 

[octafish]

Remember when you bought a game, you bought the full game?

[img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Warcraftiii-frozen-throne-boxcover.jpg]

Nope.

Fun fact - DLC is the exact same model as Expansion packs. The difference? The DLC is cheaper and easier to get. Oh noes, convenience is ruining us all.[/quote]
It isn't usually as big as a proper expansion pack though, that would be my gripe with it if I cared. Just off the top of my head NWN's Shadows of Undrentide was a fraction of the price of NWN (at least half price from memory) and the campaign was not only better than the original but also at least as long. Nowadays that would be called a sequel and priced at full price. I just don't think modern DLC can compare to proper expansion packs. I fully support the return to proper meaty expansion packs if any of the publisher/developers want to try it though.

Anyway. Day one DLC is a good reward for either pre-ordering or buying a retail copy, I don't have a problem with that especially as it is usually just some bling item.

Planned DLC may just be something that got cut from the game in the crunch towards the release date, if you can polish that and implement that, why not? It is usually just something that didn't make the final cut because it was too much work or was superfluous, and is either cool or not worth your money.

No-one makes you buy DLC and I have never played a game that cut important content and withheld it for DLC.

BTW I support the idea of an online pass, I see it as rewarding those that buy the game new,
not punishing second hand buyers.

 

[1066]

So far as I'm concerned DLC at al. comes in two forms.

The first, which I have no issue with, is of the expansion pack variety. The assorted Borderlands add-ons spring to mind and I'm currently playing through the New Vegas ones. It's been mentioned many times already that these are ways to extend the life of a game and, by and large, tend to work out. I was laughing all the way through Old World Blues for New Vegas and see it as money well spent.


The bigger issue I have is more with Day one DLC of the pre-order or paid variety. Activated stuff like the stuff included in the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2 is a bit of a rub, but ultimately doesn't bother me much.

My issue with preorder is the mindset that to get everything you need to do things their way, on their time table. Yeah, petty, I know, but I generally dislike companies trying to generate artificial demand. For small stuff, though (IE: Gigawatt blades in Infamous) I'm generally okay with so long as it doesn't affect multiplayer at all or noticably change the game.

Day one PAID DLC annoys me to no end as we are now talking about a game designed around an immediate cash grab. It is this and only this where DLC gets to me. Okay, that and a hypothetical situation in which a game was obviously unfinished and a paid DLC would be required to complete it.

I don't think there's been a company dumb enough to try that one yet, though the term 'minimum viable state' comes dangerously close. Still, that's more to do with patching culture, something I also have a lot to say on, but neither time nor place.


Bottom line: No issue with it, unless the company/companies involved are actively trying to bleed their customers, be it by paying extra day one to get the full game or by requiring preordering to get the 'incentives' required to get the full experience.

 

[Exile714]

If a game is worth the price, I will pay for it. If DLC comes out later, it doesn't matter whether it was planned or developed after the fact. I will buy it if I find that it will add value to the game greater than the value of the money spent on DLC.

That said, I can't remember actually buying DLC. I play games mainly for single player, closed story lines. Most DLC is for multi-player, which is fun but not my core gameplay. Single player DLC usually extends the story in such a way that it ruins the narrative. So, I don't buy DLC, but it doesn't bother me if they plan it ahead of time.

If the game isn't worth buying, don't buy it. Don't complain after the fact that the DLC should have been included in the original price because you shouldn't have bought it unless it was worth it.

 

[tzimize]

I HATE DLC!

I miss the days when I could download new colors for lightsabers in Jedi Knight, new maps in quake or new mods in Half life...FAN made stuff. Free.

I recently saw COD fans had bought map packs for 500 000 000 dollars or so. And I have only one thing to say. Fuck you. Thanks for ruining the platform for the rest of us.

Nowadays we get mediocre content at BEST...extremely overpriced. The only example I can think of where DLC is a good thing...is Guitar Hero/Rock band. You dont need a new game, you just need more music. This is relevant DLC. I cant think of a single other example where I havent wished for the swift death of whoever dreamed up the latest shitty DLC.

"should have been on the disk"

i stopped reading here. when you make a game, you can say what should and should not have been on the disc. This was debated about the Street Fighter costumes that were in fact on the disc, but in order to play with them you had to pay extra for them on line. lots of people didn't like that.

if you don't want something don't buy it. simple as that.

Yes, and no.

Its as simple as that because I can just not buy it. But the market is still changed (by idiots) who buy this crap. I remember the latest prince of persia game...where the finale was not final...there was a DLC ending. I raged so hard I almost had a heart attack. Not because prince of persia was the best thing ever...but because I couldnt finish the story I'd invested in because they wanted to string me along for a few extra bucks. Fuck that.

Edit: Would you honestly be OK with it if the last 20 pages of a very exciting book were missing and all that was there was a note from the Author saying: The final chapter is on sale in a bookstore near you for 20$! ;D

DLC at its worst is no better than this.

If they were up front about, I would be okay with it. I wouldn't like it, and probably wouldn't purchase it, but I would be okay with it.

Well sure, but how many companies today say: Oh btw, our game isnt finished you have to buy the ending in a DLC...

 

[Rhinzual26]

DLC is a companies way of keeping a game popular and fresh long after it's release. Just look at Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I have long since completed the main games but continue to play both because of the DLC. So in my opinion well made DLC is worth the money.

Neverwinter Nights is still got an active modding community thanks to the Construction set, so does The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. Heck, even Baldur's Gate 2 is still getting some mods. Popular and fresh can be achieved by a great game, great engine, and either an easily moddable source or construction set.

This is also why DLC doesn't exactly work in those criteria, because the modding community would -always- churn out stuff better than what people pay for, and they'd make stuff similar to what was DLC and make it better. Lair of the Shadow Broker for Mass Effect 2, great DLC, but if it was in the hands of a competent modder or mod team, it would've been much, much greater (aside from lack of voiced roles, another reason mods are less likely to appear in such a scale these days).

 

[chaosyoshimage]

As long as the game I bought gives me a complete experience and the DLC adds to the experience in a substantial way, I'm fine. The already mentioned Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Borderlands are good examples. However, I feel that Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins are offenders. They both have content packs which feature major characters that should have been saved for a full game (Lair of the Shadow Broker, Witch Hunt), and the later has a "full" Expansion Pack which cost about the same price as a full game. But the expansion pack only had a small fraction of the content that Dragon Age: Origins had. If I didn't love BioWare's games so much, I'd wait for the complete edition (I'll probably end up buying DA: O's Complete eventually just for Awakening, Leliana's Song, and Witch Hunt).