Poll: What do you think of DLC today and do you wish you had protested in when it began?

GabeZhul

New member
Mar 8, 2012
699
0
0
baddude1337 said:
No games really do big sized DLC, which IMO is what a good DLc should do. Even Skyrim's DLC's were pretty piss poor compared to the series' expansions for it's previous games.
I respectfully disagree. Dawnguard introduced a new weapon class (crossbows), added the vampire lord form and most importantly, gave us Serena, the best companion in the game (as in, she was an actual character with some barely hidden UST towards the PC and she actually had extensive comments on everything. really, all vanilla companions should have been like that, but alas, mods.) Overall it was not perfect, but I would still rank it higher than, say, Oblivion's Knights of the Nine.

Then there was Dragonborn, which gave us a brand new landmass (which also doubled as a fanservice trip), dragon-manipulating shouts, the awesome realm of Apocrypha and a questline that was actually more interesting than anything in the vanilla game (though this last one is kind of subjective). Overall I would rank it on the same scale as Shivering Isles or the Morrowind expansion packs.

Heartfire was a bit meh, but then again, that was for role-players who preferred to spend some time establishing their character as a family-man in-universe.

So again, I don't think Skyrim's big DLCs are in any way inferior to any of the expansions of the previous games, and Bethesda even learned from their mistake and didn't try to shovel more horse-armor our way either.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
I don't have anything against Dlc. It's not the scourge of today's gaming and just because something is dlc doesn't mean it's bad. I aggree that a lot of developers are retarted and overcharge insanely for basically worthless dlc.
That being said there are enough examples of dlc done right.
Paradox is a great example of that. Often i see people rage at paradox just because they see that a game has a lot of dlc and dlc = bad in their mind.
But the paradox grand strategy games are always worth their money when they're bought initially and the dlc's always bring enough new content and game mechanics to be worth their money too.
The Skin and music packs are a bit too expensive in my mind, but their costmetic. I just don't buy them until they're on sale and that's that.
 

baddude1337

Taffer
Jun 9, 2010
1,856
0
0
GabeZhul said:
baddude1337 said:
No games really do big sized DLC, which IMO is what a good DLc should do. Even Skyrim's DLC's were pretty piss poor compared to the series' expansions for it's previous games.
I respectfully disagree. Dawnguard introduced a new weapon class (crossbows), added the vampire lord form and most importantly, gave us Serena, the best companion in the game (as in, she was an actual character with some barely hidden UST towards the PC and she actually had extensive comments on everything. really, all vanilla companions should have been like that, but alas, mods.) Overall it was not perfect, but I would still rank it higher than, say, Oblivion's Knights of the Nine.

Then there was Dragonborn, which gave us a brand new landmass (which also doubled as a fanservice trip), dragon-manipulating shouts, the awesome realm of Apocrypha and a questline that was actually more interesting than anything in the vanilla game (though this last one is kind of subjective). Overall I would rank it on the same scale as Shivering Isles or the Morrowind expansion packs.

Heartfire was a bit meh, but then again, that was for role-players who preferred to spend some time establishing their character as a family-man in-universe.

So again, I don't think Skyrim's big DLCs are in any way inferior to any of the expansions of the previous games, and Bethesda even learned from their mistake and didn't try to shovel more horse-armor our way either.
I personally didn't enjoy them. Though IMO most of Skyrim had a bland story and quests, which is probably why I didn't enjoy them. Playing as a Vampire lord was fun, but only after getting a few mods to flesh it out.

To me the DLC toe didn't stack up to Shiverinf Isles, or the numerous chunky DLC packs Fallout 3 and NV got.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
I kinda like DLC. I understand how it can be used to nickel and dime people and I am opposed to the DLCs that are designed to but I don't mind paying for DLC that I believe has a fair price and gives a good amount of content. Personally I felt the extra DLC missions for the Mass Effect trilogy were pretty fair. They gave me between two to three hours of content depending on how much I explored. I picked up The Witcher 3's expansion pass. 30 hours of content is well worth the price I believe. GTA IV had their two expansions two which I gladly bought which gave me another 30 to 40 hours of gameplay.

Basically, I only buy DLC if I think it is worth the price.
 

Darth Rosenberg

New member
Oct 25, 2011
1,288
0
0
Another poll, another poll which absurdly simplifies an issue and leaves you with nothing more nuanced than 'yay' or 'nay'. So, I can't vote (I also find the notion of comparing DLC to cancer slightly iffy).

As for the actual greys between the black and white? It's not really DLC that bothers me - some of it's good, some of it's bad, and then there's everything in between. What does bother me is the way major publishers seem to have turned gamers into revenue sources to be exploited, both before, during, and after launch.

I was drifting (arf.. ) away from racers in general, but Turn 10 had a disgusting policy for Forza 4. I bought the collector's edition, and the season pass/VIP pass. I assumed I had invested in the new car packs coming out for the duration of FM4's lifespan. 'Cept the pass ran out, and they still released more packs, wanting even more money out of me. That? Put me off buying another Forza ever again.

These days, if a game has season passes and pre-order incentives from the off, I'm likely to not get the game if I was on the fence before. Their overall greed and avarice has not 'incentivised' me to buy more games, it's pissed me off enough to buy less.
 

likalaruku

New member
Nov 29, 2008
4,290
0
0
Well, every time I encounter DLC, it's either for a game that has better mods of the same thing, or I've taken so long to buy the game that it's been added to the GOTYE disc, so I've never bought into it.
 

SmugFrog

Ribbit
Sep 4, 2008
1,237
0
0
DoPo said:
THERE FUCKING AREN'T ONLY TWO FUCKING SIDES OF EVERY FUCKING ISSUE?
This is what I'm with; I don't like either of these options.

There was "DLC" before DLC, and it was called expansion packs. Sometimes they were good and provided a whole set of new content, sometimes they were crap and added a few features that were lacking or even broken content. Same as DLC does today. The problem I personally have with DLC and what makes me suspicious of it is when they're advertising DLC before the game is even released. Like they're holding assets aside so they can charge for them and make more money.

Many devs have gone on to say this is not the case as some of those assets were not completed by the launch of the game (hence the DLC launches a week or so later), but some have the content locked on the disc and it's inaccessible unless you make a purchase. That and the preorder bonuses to drive sales. That is unacceptable to me.

I'm really irritated that the Arkham Knight game is announcing a 6 month DLC pass for $40 and no one is even sure what that means. 6 months of what? Will a big expansion launch 7-8 months after the game's release and it will cost more on top of the $60 + $40 you've already spent? It has become out of control with some games.
 

Akjosch

New member
Sep 12, 2014
155
0
0
Where's the "DLC have always been cancer and I refuse to buy or use them" option?

Some of us saw where this train is going from the beginning - and simply refused to join the ride.
 

AlouetteSK

New member
Sep 4, 2014
47
0
0
Can't vote on this. Very contextual dependent. From what I know, after they're done with the main assets, artists usually don't have much to do while waiting for the game to go gold. So in order to do something useful, they make cosmetic DLC. I'm fine with that. What I'm not ok with is when a game is designed to be incomplete and developers planning and working on DLC before the game is even finished. Also as annoying are when they work with publishers to create exclusive pre-order DLC in order to incentivize players to buy the game early. Because apparently they don't have any faith in their game standing on its own merits. If they work on the game after it's done and shipped out, it's called an expansion pack, and I'm good with that. Last thing that bugs me is the so called "season pass" that does not include all the expansion packs, e.g. Borderlands, or when a "complete edition" comes out missing bits and pieces to be nickled and dimed.

So in short, concept of DLC varies is nice, implementation is horribad.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
I like how a few people have used the 'bad apple' analogy. I see DLC as being a generally good idea. After all, if it was pitched and released today Majora's Mask would likely be a massive piece of expansion DLC. The way DLC is used is a bit exploitative (looking at Evolve), it can be unnecessary (looking at Mortal Kombat X) and, it can even be downright stupid (looking at every store-exclusive). The thing is, it isn't an evil thing. Nintendo for example are doing almost everything right. I can't say I agree with Fire Emblem's chapter 3 DLC and Pokemon Shuffle looks like a pretty bad idea but those are both countered by Hyrule Warriors (which was already a meaty game being given extra swaths of content), Smash Bros (again, big game that's getting smaller bits of really neat DLC) and Mario Kart 8 (decently sized game, large if you're into the competitive side of things, getting a shit-ton of extra content for a bargain basement price).

I see DLC as being like a tyranny; it's only as good as the tyrant. Nintendo is a more or less a Vetinari whereas other publishers aren't quite on their level.
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Oct 25, 2009
3,155
756
118
UK
Gender
He/Him
DLC, as a concept, is great, and always will be great. Extra content for a game that you love? Of course I want in!

But like most things, there is always a bad side, and it just seems that the bad side has surfaced more and more recently. Sure, for every Undead Nightmare, there is a Horse Armour Pack, and every game is trying to flog off a season pass before the game is even out yet, but I am a strong supporter of DLC as a concept. It just needs to be used right.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
Akjosch said:
Where's the "DLC have always been cancer and I refuse to buy or use them" option?

Some of us saw where this train is going from the beginning - and simply refused to join the ride.
I would have to agree with this poster and so have abstained from voting sadly.

Some DLC could be okay or even good, but the general trend is squeezing more money out of gamers.

I don't do Steam, DLC, pre-orders, DRM, or "cinematic" gameplay..
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
I just don't understand the people who say "some DLC is good and some is bad". Well no shit, that was never in dispute. What I am asking is, all things considered, what is your overall view of DLC in 2015 and if you had known what you know today in 2007, would you have made more noise and refused to buy it, the kind of noise we just witnessed with paid mods?
 

Akjosch

New member
Sep 12, 2014
155
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
What I am asking is, all things considered, what is your overall view of DLC in 2015 and if you had known what you know today in 2007, would you have made more noise and refused to buy it, the kind of noise we just witnessed with paid mods?
Why do you think we didn't make such noise? I certainly did. Even got banned from the official Paradox forums for that.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Akjosch said:
WeepingAngels said:
What I am asking is, all things considered, what is your overall view of DLC in 2015 and if you had known what you know today in 2007, would you have made more noise and refused to buy it, the kind of noise we just witnessed with paid mods?
Why do you think we didn't make such noise? I certainly did. Even got banned from the official Paradox forums for that.
If only more people did. Of course I fear that "paid mods v2" will not generate as much noise.
 

asdfen

New member
Oct 27, 2011
226
0
0
player made mods are just that - mods. If you you would actually know how much work it is to make a good mod you would not be opposed to paid mods.

dlc wise I personally view them as something as something that it is here to stay du to people making stupid choices. Personally I am agnostic towards DLC as I will never buy any dlc untill after review/gameplay videos and so on. If someone want to play dress up for extra money they should go for it. Games featuring DLCs that actually impacts gameplay aka pay to win to the point that it would negativley impacts my expirience I just do not purchase in the first place so I do not have anything to complain about regarding DLCs. Not to mention a lot of good games get bundle releases at some point with everything included for a reasonable price.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
asdfen said:
player made mods are just that - mods. If you you would actually know how much work it is to make a good mod you would not be opposed to paid mods.

dlc wise I personally view them as something as something that it is here to stay du to people making stupid choices. Personally I am agnostic towards DLC as I will never buy any dlc untill after review/gameplay videos and so on. If someone want to play dress up for extra money they should go for it. Games featuring DLCs that actually impacts gameplay aka pay to win to the point that it would negativley impacts my expirience I just do not purchase in the first place so I do not have anything to complain about regarding DLCs. Not to mention a lot of good games get bundle releases at some point with everything included for a reasonable price.
So....you want to pay for player made DLC but not DLC made by developers?
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
No, I wouldn't have. Yes there's a lot of bullshit involved, mostly with the removal of the original game for the sake of DLC, but most games that pull this bullshit will have a GOTY edition because the publishers are desperate to make all the money they possibly can. There, the cautious people who probably have another six million AAA industry quibbles to warrant patience are catered to. I can't imagine that many people who buy AAA games have it in their mind that they're gonna buy all the DLC anyway, and most people don't even finish the game they buy brand new so no harm, no foul for the majority.

I just don't see it as this diabolical, evil thing. At least not any more than anything else on the list of things that can be made anti-consumer in the AAA industry.
 

COMaestro

Vae Victis!
May 24, 2010
739
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
I just don't understand the people who say "some DLC is good and some is bad". Well no shit, that was never in dispute. What I am asking is, all things considered, what is your overall view of DLC in 2015 and if you had known what you know today in 2007, would you have made more noise and refused to buy it, the kind of noise we just witnessed with paid mods?
Funny, your poll and even your opening post do not suggest "some DLC is good and some is bad" in any way, shape, or form. Probably why so many people gave you shit over it to begin with.

Like many here, I think DLC as a concept is fine, sometimes even fantastic. The way its being used or priced, on the other hand, not so much. I think it's fine for a company to put up a bunch of cosmetic DLC for a couple of bucks each. It's totally optional and changes nothing about the overall story or gameplay, so those who have the money and like the look of it can buy it if they want.

DLC that adds story is okay if I can miss out on it and still be able to understand what is going on in a sequel. For example, the Batman Arkham City: Harley's Revenge DLC fits this just fine, whereas the Epilogue DLC to 2008's Prince of Persia (though since the continuation was on the DS, I've never finished the story anyway) and the Reverie and Resurrection DLC's to Castlevania Lords of Shadow do not. The DLC's for the latter directly show story that explains important details for the characters which would appear to be necessary to understand how they reached the place they are in the following games. The exception to this would be if the sequel covers the story of the DLC at the beginning of the game so that people who did not pick up the DLC are not left in the dark.

Stand alone missions, challenge maps, etc are fine too, as they do not require someone to purchase it in order to enjoy the main game. Those who really want something new to add to the game are welcome to purchase it, but it is by no means a necessity.

The only DLC I really object to is on-disc DLC, which is obviously a money grab, and Day 1 DLC which obviously could have been on the disc or should have been in the game to begin with. Cosmetic stuff gets a pass from me, as the artists really do have nothing to do once a game goes gold so if they work on something extra afterwards it's cool, but, for instance, characters in a fighting game or cars in a racing game do not. More needs to go into those to ensure they work with the main game, so having them suddenly ready to release Day 1 just does not feel realistic. A few weeks after release? Sure. Not Day 1 though.

The paid mods debacle was not a fuss over mods suddenly receiving a charge, it was the logistical nightmare that it would have necessitated. Many mods are based on other mods or require other mods to be installed first, so how do you fairly pay everyone in this scenario? There was also the likelihood of someone making a minor change to a mod and then selling it, even though all the work was really done by another person entirely who really deserved the payment. Plus the distribution of a payment between the seller, Steam, and Bethesda was a joke, and the required amount a seller would need to make before they could actually withdraw any of their earnings meant some smaller modders may never see a dime.

Ultimately, I purchase the DLC that I feel I will enjoy if I find the price agreeable. Usually, if you are willing to wait for a year, it can be very cheap, or if you haven't purchased the game already you can get a GOTY version with most or all of the DLC for a game. Even Season Passes get discounted after a while for most games, usually once everything in it has been released. Still, I find there's often only one or two bits of DLC I want which I can get cheaper by buying them individually.

I just don't see DLC as a scourge or cancer, and even with some bad practices by some developers and publishers, there are others that do things fine. It makes perfect sense for a company to try to make more money by pre-selling DLC. That's their job, to make money. You want to rant at something, rant at the people who pay for it. They are the ones who keep making the developers and publishers use these methods.