Poll: The Problem with DLC Today

[TimeLord]

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).

Which is all fine from a PC point of view. But what about consoles who don't have that option? Developers need to extend the life of a console game with DLC.

 

[Mafoobula]

I was having a debate with my brother over the ending of Fallout 3 and how it came off as being pretty damn weak. He then told me that there's DLC that makes for a better ending. I immediately called foul, equating it to releasing a great book, but with a crap ending, then releasing a booklet that gives the better ending.

Worse than actual DLC is the need for patching. Now, I can make an exception for MMO games, it's nigh-impossible to make the game or the servers proof against the gajillions of people that log on on patch day. On the other hand, if it's a AAA title that's meant to have a strong single-player mode, and THAT is glitched to hell, we have problems. If memory serves, New Vegas had this problem when it first came out. Hell, Zelda: Twilight Princess has a game-breaking glitch, and I'm not sure if that was fixed at all.

I think it all comes down to two things: greed and apathy. Want the sweetest guns? Fork out for the DLC. New maps? Eh, we'll release 'em eventually, maybe 5 at a time. Missed a glitch? Easier to make them get the patch after they buy it.

 

[Vault101]

DLC is always a grey area

I mean depends in the game feels like a full product without it....

 

[Trivun]

-snip-

Dude, read the whole thing. I'm not against DLC, I'm against what publishers do with it

-snip-

When I say planned DLC, I meant DLC that is announced before the game ships. I realize that DLC is planned just like any other part of the game and I appreciate the work that goes into it, but I don't want publishers to be doing what they are doing now, which is essentially taking out parts of the game to sell separately for more money. Remember what Bioshock 2 did? It shipped with the early DLC and when you buy the DLC, it downloads a key to unlock it. I raged so hard that day...

It's okay, I wasn't commenting on whether or not you like DLC yourself, I was simply making a general statement about gamers as a whole, a statement I feel is true, and giving my own opinions on the topic. And as for your Bioshock 2 example, I fully agree with your point, and that is the kind of DLC that should be free, purely because it's already on the disk. The DLC made during the post-production phase, during testing, bug-fixing, and shipping, is the sort that should be released a while later. If it's released actually on the disk, but locked, then obviously it was made during regular development and that should be part of the game, or free...

 

[The Cor]

I hate DLC's that are basically just cut content from the original game, but often some companies release DLC's that are really worthwhile.

The best DLC's that I have played were those of fallout 3/NV and borderlands, though 1 DLC in each fallout game contains a cut part of the original or an addition to the main story-line(in fallout 3 it's broken steel in fallout NV that last part still has to come) but I always enjoyed the fallout DLC's so it didn't/doesn't bother me that much.

The company that I hate the most with their DLC policy is Bioware and in my opinion they can suck a loverocket. Not only does it look like their dlc's are worthless 1 extra area's but they also shove it in your face that you need to buy the DLC. They just add an extra area on your map or an certain character to their games, then an event takes place and within a few seconds the screen pops-up saying 'You can now have wild adventures if you give us more money!'. That down right pisses me off, it really feels to me that I am only "allowed" to play the full game when I have paid several extra euro's on top of the original price and that is just bullshit.

 

[Theo Rob]

DLC is always a grey area

I mean depends in the game feels like a full product without it....

same here
its how I fear most games are going to end up

also there the case of dynasty warriors 7 and the Japanese audio, 1 GB of my hard drive taken up by something that they put on the discs of there last 2 games, it hurts more that its free as well.

 

[silverbullet1989]

the only dlc ive ever thought worth the money was the dlc for both fallout's, GTA IV, Borderlands...

Dlc that IS NOT worth the money are frigging map packs, yes im looking at you call of duty -_-
Back before console gaming took off maps use to be released for FREE in patches that use to FIX games, or we use to get modding tools to make our own, now we dont because we wouldnt buy the extra content, and its not just cod im bashing on, any other game that does it too. Yes im a pc gamer, yes i own a console too, but i refuse to buy any map pack full stop.

 

[BelfastSpartan]

I may buy it if it extends the length of the game and only if it's released at a reasonable date after the game is realised!

For example adding on quite a few maps (not just 1 or 2) or more missions(see fallout) that really do extend the playability of the game.

If it's day 1 or even released within the first few weeks then I'm sorry you are clearly money grabbing bastards and probably had it included on the disc but some smart arse decided to charge more for it a week or so after release to get more money!

So no I will not be buying DLC unless it is of decent value for money, extends the playing time/experience by a decent amount and it's released at least a month after the release date!

And if I need to buy an 'online pass' then forget, they can suck my left testicle, you'll be getting nothing out of me!

Shame really if someone actually realised more people would buy the game/DLC if they used a bit of common sense and released things properly at a decent time then they would probably make more money!

 

[Dogstile]

If the data is on the disc, then you should have it when you buy it.

Aside from that, DLC can be good. Its just been abused recently. Hell, even DE:HR has day one DLC that was quite clearly cut from the main game.

 

[mitchell271]

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.

Think of it this way: DLC literally means DOWNLOADABLE content. When it's already on the disk, the publisher (or maybe even the devs) are selling you a game but are locking away parts of it that were finished in time for shipping and then calling it new and expecting you to pay more. I've already used this, but remember Bioshock 2? The early DLC multiplayer maps were already on the disk. When you bought the DLC, it downloaded a little 100kb key to unlock that. When I pay $10 for something that was already on the disk, it just feels so wrong.

 

[Cowabungaa]

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

So no expansion packs either? Because a lot of DLC packs are just expansion packs in digital form. Examples of those are Fallout's DLC, some of Dragon Age's and GTA4. Each game offered DLC packs that offered many of extra hours of gameplay, sometimes even whole new stories.

Not all DLC is like Oblivion's horse armor, so why not do the same as one would do with games; judge them on a case-by-case basis?

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

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.

Think of it this way: DLC literally means DOWNLOADABLE content. When it's already on the disk, the publisher (or maybe even the devs) are selling you a game but are locking away parts of it that were finished in time for shipping and then calling it new and expecting you to pay more. I've already used this, but remember Bioshock 2? The early DLC multiplayer maps were already on the disk. When you bought the DLC, it downloaded a little 100kb key to unlock that. When I pay $10 for something that was already on the disk, it just feels so wrong.

Just because DLC Stands for Downloadable Content, does not mean that it has to be downloadable, it is like a name for extra content (It can also mean downloading the content from the CD), look at borderlands, its DLC, which it clearly names it as DLC, can be bought on a disc, completely seperate.

All i mean by this is, if by them keeping it seperate helps fund further games and / or more DLC to keep that game alive, I will be supporting them.

 

[Beth Zeller]

I don't have a problem with DLC when it comes to most things but I DO have probems with DLC that gives a advantage in games that have online and are competative. Soul Caliber 4 is a good example of this... You can pay 5$ and unlock all the best weapons/gears. That is just annoying IMHO. This annoys me because to achieve these items legitimately you have to do some very hard challenges in the single player story mode.

What is the point of even playing if you can just drop 5$ to unlock everything? Kinda defeats the purpose of the game for me...

I know this was a major factor in me not liking soul caliber 4, Payed 60$ for it, it sits on the shelf for 2 and 1/2 years or so now never being played since the release of that DLC.

Edit: I also do not like to pay for supposed DLC that was already on the disc( you know those like 100 kb unlock file you get after dropping down another 5-10$.. Resident evil 5 pvp unlock comes to mind)

 

[dickywebster]

Personally i think dlc makes game companies lazy, I've played a few games recently that seem a bit glitchy which apparently r fixed with the dlc, but then its not always free...

It seems to be more of a safety net than an add on system, anything small they can't fix before release, just fix it in the dlc, which also seems to be an easy excuse for releasing often unfinished games...

So yeah, personally, I don't like dlc, but then Ihave yet to bother with a psn account and I don't really want to set one up just so my "completed" games can be a bit less buggy.

But I've not really paid huge amounts of attention to dlc much, so things could have changed for all i know

 

[LordLundar]

The problem with a lot (not all, there is some good stuff out there) of DLC is that it's poor quality junk that costs far too much for what you get tacked onto a game that either has run it's lifespan or was poor quality in the first place.

 

[kouriichi]

I think it truly depends on the quality of the DLC itself.

Oblivion's "The Shivering Isles"? Worth every penny and more.

Fallout 3's "Point Lookout"? Totally. Id buy it twice over.

Dragon Age "Awakening"? OH YEAH! I loved that DLC. Great writing and fun times to be had.

But then you get DLC's like the newest Blops map pack. "Heres one new level, and a bunch you already own with slight better texture work".

You cant say, "All DLC should be free", because alot of DLC produced is extremely high value content. Some of it, almost a new game itself. While quite a bit of DLC should be free, because its a small add-on, or just a few items you'll probably out level or never use.

 

[Magicmad5511]

I will only get DLC if it is
A)Free
or
B)Really cool looking

I will not buy a game if it looks like I will need expensive DLC to get the full experience.
I think my main problem with DLC though is that when a new pack is created, it puts the achievements on for everyone, even if you don't buy it. This means you can't get 100% achievements without buying it(some examples being Halo Reach, Enslaved, Fable 3 and Halo Wars).

 

[Stilkon]

I didn't pre-order Deus Ex but I was lucky enough to get a pre order copy.

Funny, I found myself in the same situation.

Another thing you might want to think about is time constraints. In an episode of Extra Credits, Dan said that no game is complete before it ships. DLC may provide developers with more of an opportunity to make the gaming experience more "holistic", like with extra missions or backstory.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

What annoys me mostly with DLC's (mostly in RPGs), is that when you start the game with DLCs, you'll get notes and quests almost at the start of the game, and these quests, even if a bit harder, often leads to better loot than anywhere in the game. I wish they integrated the DLCs better. Kinda like having an NPC giving you the quest (like everyone elese) somwhere in the game.

Also, not sure if one can call it DLC, but what Valve has done with TF2 is how it should be..., that would be perfect..., shame that won't happen...

Agreed. Much like some of the Dragon Age: Origins DLC. Starfang is quite easily the most powerful Greatsword/Longsword in the game, and you can get it literally right after you leave Lothering. Regardless of whether that's a good 4-5 hours into the game or not(depending on how slow or fast you are), that's still literally in the beginning of the game. Just complete Warden's Keep and boom, most powerful sword in the game. ...wat? .___. Keep stronger, more powerful DLC later in the game where it's acceptable to actually have something that powerful. Making a Greatsword Warrior with Starfang directly at the beginning of the game makes most enemies quite laughable, at best.

I personally detest DLC that is made simply for the most it can grab. Stuff that's created later AFTER the game is shipped is acceptable, as long as the DLC adds something substantial to the game. As long as it doesn't suck like The Exiled Prince in Dragon Age II. >> Sebastian may have pretty slick armor, but compared to everyone else, he's a pretty useless companion. If that. .__. Varric's 50x better with a bow. Now, DLC like The Desperate Escape and Lost in Nightmares for Resident Evil 5, in my opinion, are shining examples of very well made DLC. Whole chapter length DLC, and they're outside the main game, while still inside and directly related to it. Ever wonder what happened at the Spencer Mansion with Chris, Jill and Wesker? Boom, Lost in Nightmares for ya. Wonder wtf happened to Jill after you saved her? Boom, Desperate Escape for ya.

As for online passes, I'm on the fence about those. I used to get used games, but I usually get new ones now. I can understand why they make online passes. Multiplayer is something people like to have so they can enjoy their games with their buds, but used games give no money to the developers. So they're pretty much saying "Sure you can buy the game used! But we want our cut. SO pay up and you can use our shiny multiplayer function." Personally, for games like that, even though I really don't use Multiplayer, if at all, it's just cheaper to buy it brand new because even with the reduced prices of a used game, you'll end up cumulatively spending more to get that online pass.

My personal vote: Continue with well made DLC that adds something substantial to the game's experience, and abolish useless DLC and Day 1 DLC.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

DLC on a game I actually like, and is more than just new costumes/palette swaps/weapon skins etc. I would probably get.

The crap that seemed like it took more than 2 hours and 12 lines of code to put together essentially.

I won't buy things that are already on the game I bought, like RE5 multi, I also ended up not keeping said game because of how much it sucked.

I won't buy extra multiplayer maps for games, because after getting some for KZ2 and seeing how poor they were/no one played them anyways it was just a waste of money.

The real thing that pisses me off is not DLC, though there are degrees of underhanded BS involved with it sometimes, rather its the inability of so called AAA games to ship FUNCTIONING.

Games that I was somewhat interested in like Deus Ex, Dead Island, and Resistance 3 (as well as anything with Bethesda's name on it) are riddled with small to exceptionally huge problems. More often than not they ARE NEVER FIXED.

Such as if you were stupid enough to become a vampire in Oblivion, you are SOL on curing it. Quest is bugged for over 5 years and they can't be bothered to patch a line of code.

All I read about Dead Island is how YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR FUCKING GAME. It has an auto save system, that doesn't save. That is probably the biggest sign of not giving a shit/testing your product AT ALL that I've ever seen.

Usually the developers hide behind the shield of "we can't predict how someone is gonna play our ubermassive open world game so we can't debug it properly."

Did the possibility that people would end up NOT playing 20+ hours straight without shutting off their console elude them?

The other rational is that they can just patch everything neat and simple like. If that were true, then there wouldn't be uncounted threads in various forums with the title "How do I uninstall that patch that just made my game play even worse?!"

Or Bethesdas's system of "Here is a patch for 12 out of the 80 things broken in our game. Thats all you are gonna get. ever. deal with it."

All of this is based on the incorrect assumption that everyone has their rig connected to the net, is patient enough to let them fix their product (assuming they bother) and of course every single copy of the game that is ever made will not have anything fixed.

If you bought a car that had a manufacturer recall of a critical part, the dealer knew about it/they continued to produce every single car with the same faulty parts for its entire production run, wouldn't you assume a class action lawsuit to be called for?

But no. You can walk into any retailer and pick up a 5 year anniversary edition of Oblivion, or god forbid a brand new copy of New Vegas, and they will let you take it home with no warning that there is a rather significant chance of it being unplayable unless you patch it.

Basically DLC tends to sell better if the game you make it for actually works first, which is becoming an increasingly sketchy proposition these days.

The only developer I actually trust to deliver a solid product anymore is From Software*

Demon's Souls, 3D Dot Heros, and Dark Souls are/going to be excellent games. The only patches they had actually fixed things/added fan made content/made slight balance changes based on community feedback. They also prefer to ship a complete, polished, balanced game than plan DLC that might ruin that balance. They let their work speak for itself, and judging from the fact that Demon's Souls is still popular I'd say its working for them.

* I used to say that about Nintendo and Square Enix, but FF13 and Other M really disappointed me