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

[Flammablezeus]

It really depends. When it's expansion packs like Dragonborn for Skyrim, Lost and Damned for GTA IV or something else of a similar size then I think it's great. We can pay to get a lot more out of our games. However when you're paying for things like a few skins or a gun or two? Go to hell. That's ridiculously greedy. Pre-order bonuses come under this too. Telling us that we don't get the full game if we don't pay for it before it comes out, or if we don't buy it from the "right place" is a disgusting practice.

 

[DoPo]

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?

What's the difference between a mod and a "third party DLC"? That you pay? No, that's surely not it - there have been free DLC before, I never heard them referred as mods.

Is it amount of effort involved? I've never heard of OOO called a DLC, then.

But the answer to the question is rather simple - there is not difference. On the technical side, that is - both work in rather the same way, most of the time. It's been historically so, in fact - mods turned games? Counter-Strike was a mod - were you to install The Specialist or whatever, they operate the same way. Same thing with, say, Morrowind mods - just .esp files, like Bloodmoon. Heck, around that time DLC wasn't even a term yet, they were called add-ons: what you create with the toolkit - an addon; what you can get off from Bethesda - also an add-on. The latter was called "official add-on". Whatever, it's the exact same thing - Siege at Firemoth is still a DLC.

Why you think you want to make some hard distinction, I don't know. They've never really been different. Aside from one being more official than the other, I suppose. Even then, mods-turned-games have already straddled this line for a decade now - DotA was an e-sport entry from before there even were stand alone games inspired by it.

 

[WeepingAngels]

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.

Well, since that wasn't the intent of the thread, why would I mention it in my OP or the poll? It's a no brainer and not worth mentioning or discussing because no one is going to argue that all DLC is good or all DLC is bad.

I'll say it again: 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?

Let me be clear, I am not interested in what DLC you like or what DLC you hate (though it's fine to tell everyone else if you like). I am just asking if you think DLC in general is worth having around or if you wish it had gone away before it got so big?

 

[WeepingAngels]

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?

What's the difference between a mod and a "third party DLC"? That you pay? No, that's surely not it - there have been free DLC before, I never heard them referred as mods.

Is it amount of effort involved? I've never heard of OOO called a DLC, then.

But the answer to the question is rather simple - there is not difference. On the technical side, that is - both work in rather the same way, most of the time. It's been historically so, in fact - mods turned games? Counter-Strike was a mod - were you to install The Specialist or whatever, they operate the same way. Same thing with, say, Morrowind mods - just .esp files, like Bloodmoon. Heck, around that time DLC wasn't even a term yet, they were called add-ons: what you create with the toolkit - an addon; what you can get off from Bethesda - also an add-on. The latter was called "official add-on". Whatever, it's the exact same thing - Siege at Firemoth is still a DLC.

Why you think you want to make some hard distinction, I don't know. They've never really been different. Aside from one being more official than the other, I suppose. Even then, mods-turned-games have already straddled this line for a decade now - DotA was an e-sport entry from before there even were stand alone games inspired by it.

I am not the one arguing that player made DLC and developer made DLC are different. They are both DLC and since I see them as the same, I oppose paying for both and I wish DLC had been stopped before it became the greedfest that it is today.

Maybe console gamers are ok with paying for every piece of content they download but things have been different on the PC and it was working just fine before Valve and Bethesda decided to exploit modders.

 

[DoPo]

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?

What's the difference between a mod and a "third party DLC"? That you pay? No, that's surely not it - there have been free DLC before, I never heard them referred as mods.

Is it amount of effort involved? I've never heard of OOO called a DLC, then.

But the answer to the question is rather simple - there is not difference. On the technical side, that is - both work in rather the same way, most of the time. It's been historically so, in fact - mods turned games? Counter-Strike was a mod - were you to install The Specialist or whatever, they operate the same way. Same thing with, say, Morrowind mods - just .esp files, like Bloodmoon. Heck, around that time DLC wasn't even a term yet, they were called add-ons: what you create with the toolkit - an addon; what you can get off from Bethesda - also an add-on. The latter was called "official add-on". Whatever, it's the exact same thing - Siege at Firemoth is still a DLC.

Why you think you want to make some hard distinction, I don't know. They've never really been different. Aside from one being more official than the other, I suppose. Even then, mods-turned-games have already straddled this line for a decade now - DotA was an e-sport entry from before there even were stand alone games inspired by it.

I am not the one arguing that player made DLC and developer made DLC are different.

Then why explicitly mention paid mods are equivalent to DLC? When you say "paid", as opposed to "all" (or just unqualified, which implies "all"), you are drawing a distinction. It was further emphasised by the fact that you made sure to explicitly point out it's your view only.

 

[bat32391]

I don't hate DLC that was made after the game was created, what is the cancer is when they cut out content and sell on day one like they did with Goro.

 

[Adamantium93]

I mean, I kinda like DLC. I feel like I'm not alone in saying that a lot of DLC is good. Even season passes I don't hate as a concept. I bought every piece of story DLC for Mass Effect 2 and I enjoyed all of it. Kasumi, Overlord, Shadow Broker, Arrival, even the Firewalker pack. If it was wrapped up in a cheaper season pass, I'd have been fine with it.

Where DLC becomes problematic is when:

A) Content is withheld from the game to sell it later as DLC
B) The DLC is massively overpriced/underdeveloped.
C) The DLC is "pay to win" [even then, I only have a problem with that in multiplayer]

But if it avoids those criteria, I'm fine with it.

It is easy to say "they should release the game when its finished, not before" but for a true artist, their work is never done. Talk with anyone who's made a great game and they'll list off a number of things they wanted to add but never did because they didn't have the money or the time or any number of other factors. Sooner or later, they had to say "this isn't quite what I wanted, but this will do."

The age of DLC erases that. They don't have to settle for what "will do". They can work on the game months after its official release. They can get feedback from fans and decide what story lines to develop post-release. Now, if this is an excuse to release an unfinished mess and fix it later, yes that is bad but I doubt they could get away with that nowadays (see Assassins Creed Unity and the shit-storm that brewed out of that one).

To bring about another Bioware example, Mass Effect 3 shows us just how useful DLC can be. People didn't like the ending; most thought it was underdeveloped and lacked any sense of closure. So Bioware released the Extended Cut and the Citadel DLC which explained the ending better and gave closure to the characters players had come to love. Had this been 10 years ago, players would have been SoL or would have had to rely on shoe-string mods to help them get what they wanted. Also in ME3, the sheer number of extra, free multiplayer content they added because players said "X would be really cool." and Bioware responded "Yeah, X would be cool. Let's put X in the multiplayer." Regardless of your feelings on the whole ME3 fiasco, you have to admit that DLC has a lot to add to gaming.

My point is that DLC is not inherently bad nor is it bringing down the industry any more than crappy games bring down the industry.

So, to answer your question, I'd rather have the good and the bad than have nothing at all.

 

[Frankster]

I hated the idea of DLC back in the day, and my predictions have proved correct about it in almost every single department.
Im a certified entitled greedy fucker cos I'm old fashioned in that I like to have my games with EVERYTHING included, no hidden BS, no locked content, if you want to add stuff after a game then make a meaty expansion pack. Expansion packs>DLCs any day. Yeah expansion packs cost more but were more value for money, DLCs is all about the milk and dime.

Of course only siths deal in absolutes. Free dlc and stuff can be ok but overall I was/am very much anti dlc. If I knew my worst fears would materialize almost perfectly, I'd have made a lot more ruckus back in the day though.

 

[WeepingAngels]

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?

What's the difference between a mod and a "third party DLC"? That you pay? No, that's surely not it - there have been free DLC before, I never heard them referred as mods.

Is it amount of effort involved? I've never heard of OOO called a DLC, then.

But the answer to the question is rather simple - there is not difference. On the technical side, that is - both work in rather the same way, most of the time. It's been historically so, in fact - mods turned games? Counter-Strike was a mod - were you to install The Specialist or whatever, they operate the same way. Same thing with, say, Morrowind mods - just .esp files, like Bloodmoon. Heck, around that time DLC wasn't even a term yet, they were called add-ons: what you create with the toolkit - an addon; what you can get off from Bethesda - also an add-on. The latter was called "official add-on". Whatever, it's the exact same thing - Siege at Firemoth is still a DLC.

Why you think you want to make some hard distinction, I don't know. They've never really been different. Aside from one being more official than the other, I suppose. Even then, mods-turned-games have already straddled this line for a decade now - DotA was an e-sport entry from before there even were stand alone games inspired by it.

I am not the one arguing that player made DLC and developer made DLC are different.

Then why explicitly mention paid mods are equivalent to DLC? When you say "paid", as opposed to "all" (or just unqualified, which implies "all"), you are drawing a distinction. It was further emphasised by the fact that you made sure to explicitly point out it's your view only.

I have no problem with free DLC be it made by players or developers.

 

[Signa]

Damn, I was thinking about making this thread weeks ago, even before the Steam deal.

I personally think that as a whole, DLC has been a negative for the gaming industry. There are some fantastic examples of great DLC over the years, but generally speaking, it's been nothing more than paywalls and overvalued content.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I don't hate DLC that was made after the game was created, what is the cancer is when they cut out content and sell on day one like they did with Goro.

In my opinion, any day 1 DLC is content that should have been in the damn game.

 

[Ironman126]

What if, and I'm shooting totally blind here: THERE FUCKING AREN'T ONLY TWO FUCKING SIDES OF EVERY FUCKING ISSUE?

I dunno I've been thinking and can't put my finger on it but it seems like it could be true. In theory.

Stop with your incessant logic. Everyone knows that there are only ever two sides to anything.

OT: No. I like a lot of DLC. Would I prefer Skyrim or Fallout: NV without DLC? Not a chance. Would I prefer Mass Effect 2 without DLC? Guess again. What about Dark Souls? Or Civ 5?

DLC certainly can be worthless or detrimental, but I don't see good DLC as being much different than old school boxed expansions. If I want more of a game, then companies should provide more, I'll gladly pay them for it.

Of course, DLC such as everything EA has put out since 2013 is bullshit. Day-one DLC is crap. "Buy our shit to finish the game" DLC like Fallout 3's Broken Steel DLC is most definitely bullshit. But not all DLC is like that. Dragonborn for Skyrim was great! Dead Money for Fallout: NV was easily my favorite DLC ever.

A better question would be: What forms of DLC are acceptable?

 

[asdfen]

So....you want to pay for player made DLC but not DLC made by developers?

I never said I want / did /do pay for mods I have also never said that I want / did /do pay for DLC. What I did state was that mods are differ from DLC in my opinion. For instance at this time most of mods are free while DLC arent, most of mods are community based effort to modify the game, while DLCs are there mostly to expand existing game with visual flare/content and bring capital to publishers/developers. Hence they are different.

 

[Olas]

How can anyone be against the CONCEPT of DLC? Like anything it can be good or it can be bad, it can be a bargain or it can be a rip-off. If I see DLC that interests me and the price is right I'll drop the money for it. If the DLC looks shoddy or is too expensive I won't buy.

The only genuine issue I see with DLC conceptually is in multiplayer games where it has the potential to fracture a community or give some players an unfair advantage. It's up to the developers to try to find ways of implementing it without ruining the experience.

 

[WeepingAngels]

How can anyone be against the CONCEPT of DLC? Like anything it can be good or it can be bad, it can be a bargain or it can be a rip-off. If I see DLC that interests me and the price is right I'll drop the money for it. If the DLC looks shoddy or is too expensive I won't buy.

The only genuine issue I see with DLC conceptually is in multiplayer games where it has the potential to fracture a community or give some players an unfair advantage. It's up to the developers to try to find ways of implementing it without ruining the experience.

Well, let me explain.

Look at mobile games that are built around microtransactions, the very design is flawed. A game designed with loads of DLC planned is likely to come out incomplete. If I remember correctly, FF 13-2 didn't even have a proper ending unless you bought DLC.

You have already mentioned multiplayer DLC problems so I don't need to go into that. So what if DLC turns the AAA market into what the mobile market has become? Would you then be able to see that DLC itself is a design flaw?

Now when I look back at games from the PS2 and before I don't see them as incomplete. Their lack of DLC has not harmed them even after DLC has been a thing for years. I don't think DLC is solving a real problem but is instead creating new problems that didn't need to exist.

If Sonic the Hedgehog were made today, the Chaos Emeralds may have been DLC.

 

[asdfen]

you do realize that no one is forcing anyone to buy things they do not enjoy making your argument invalid as DLC just bring extra content to something. New content is neither good or bad and just is.

You do not enjoy some games with DLC - dont buy them. Not to mention if you do that and vote with your wallet you will be doing something to support your belives.

kudos

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I didn't vote.

I like some DLC. Borderlands, for example, had some good legitimate expansions. As did Fallout New Vegas.

I don't like obvious cash grabs like overpriced skins.

Some devs use it for good, others use it for evil.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

If I remember correctly, FF 13-2 didn't even have a proper ending unless you bought DLC.

You're remembering wrong. There was a proper ending, the DLC only added details to it as an extended director's cut kind of deal (the point of that DLC wasn't to add to the ending, but to add an extra, and optional, boss fight and party member).

 

[RJ 17]

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.

Don't you worry, the next Great Gaming Crash is well on it's way, then the slate shall be wiped clean once more and we can start all over like we did back in the 80's.

 

[Random Fella]

DLC? What's that? I don't play on consols.