Rant on DLC's

Recommended Videos

z3rostr1fe

New member
Aug 14, 2009
590
0
0
Downloadable Content, also known as DLC.

DLC's, before the present day, are minor enhancements to a game which you could just buy as an addon. It's like a dessert after a very nice meal.

Nowadays, DLC's are the removed elements of the game which was intended to be sold separately, while the main game is still sold at the same selling rate as a complete game is being sold. Sure, the intention is to rake more money from the games, but really, if you would be doing DLC's, that DLC shouldn't be a large chunk of additional stuff that is supposedly in the complete game being sold. They've got other reasons perhaps... Just tell me...
 

Jupsto

New member
Feb 8, 2008
619
0
0
I agree DLCs have become a joke. used to be extra content developed only AFTER THE GAME IS FINISHED. and used to often be free (PC at least). now they are developing the game in pieces. selling it to you piece by piece. they used to be a free incentive which m$ started forcing charges onto with the massive SCAM that is xbox live.

I want dragon age and mass effect 2 very badly, and also assassin's creed 2. but I'm not going to buy them until the GOTY editions come out. otherwise what is the point? I will have to pay easily twice as much for the whole game. why not just wait? waiting is fine, plenty of other games to play. waiting pays off, you can buy fallout 3 GOTY for cheaper than the normal version was at release and you get so much more for you money.

how to combat DLC? don't buy it. if you really want the content wait for the GOTY edition.
 

Daipire

New member
Oct 25, 2009
1,132
0
0
Banok said:
I agree DLCs have become a joke. used to be extra content developed only AFTER THE GAME IS FINISHED. and used to often be free (PC at least). now they are developing the game in pieces. selling it to you piece by piece. they used to be a free incentive which m$ started forcing charges onto with the massive SCAM that is xbox live.

I want dragon age and mass effect 2 very badly, and also assassin's creed 2. but I'm not going to buy them until the GOTY editions come out. otherwise what is the point? I will have to pay easily twice as much for the whole game. why not just wait? waiting is fine, plenty of other games to play. waiting pays off, you can buy fallout 3 GOTY for cheaper than the normal version was at release and you get so much more for you money.

how to combat DLC? don't buy it. if you really want the content wait for the GOTY edition.
The Sims being the most extra content...

I realise that they'd require one MASSIVE CD to fit it all on, but it's still the same game, with a different after taste.
 

Sephychu

New member
Dec 13, 2009
1,697
0
0
Banok said:
I want dragon age and mass effect 2 very badly, and also assassin's creed 2. but I'm not going to buy them until the GOTY editions come out.
You may have a good point, save for DragonAge. Half the DLC is free with every new copy, and that which isn't, sucks.
 

Jupsto

New member
Feb 8, 2008
619
0
0
Sephychu said:
Banok said:
I want dragon age and mass effect 2 very badly, and also assassin's creed 2. but I'm not going to buy them until the GOTY editions come out.
You may have a good point, save for DragonAge. Half the DLC is free with every new copy, and that which isn't, sucks.
interesting, however wont there be future DLC? is it known how much DLC is planned?
 

Sephychu

New member
Dec 13, 2009
1,697
0
0
Banok said:
Sephychu said:
Banok said:
I want dragon age and mass effect 2 very badly, and also assassin's creed 2. but I'm not going to buy them until the GOTY editions come out.
You may have a good point, save for DragonAge. Half the DLC is free with every new copy, and that which isn't, sucks.
interesting, however wont there be future DLC? is it known how much DLC is planned?
I don't think they intend to do anything beyond the recent Darkspawn Chronicles, which also sucks.
 

vato_loco

New member
May 24, 2010
227
0
0
DLCs have another slight problem, at least for a tiny bit of the gamers who don't live in first-world countries: goddamn Internet connection. Seriously, at home I can download at 300KBps at the very best, which is really annoying.

I was really afraid of future games going full-DLC (no physical game), but GT's Pach-Attack gave some nice reasons for it not happening anytime soon (not sure if I can post link, let me know). I understand that USA, Europe and Asia have awesome Internet connection but Latin America in general doesn't, so it gets really annoying.

On a different note, the fact that we have to keep paying to get the FULL game simply sucks. And the fact that EA keeps doing this worse and worse is making me sick.
 

Amnestic

High Priest of Haruhi
Aug 22, 2008
8,946
0
0
Yay, yet another excuse to post this excellent post by Virgil [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083-Dragon-Age-Designer-Says-DLC-Not-Meant-to-Rip-Off-Players#3719305]

Big V said:
I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.

Because of this, there is a set amount of content that can be included in a retail game (which pretty much has a fixed price). This is typically decided early on, and as the game development progresses things are added and removed depending on the difficulties the developer encounters. At each point, a decision is made as to whether X feature is important enough to increase the time/cost of the game development - if it's not, it can get cut from the game. Many of these features might be very cool, and developers can be sad to see them cut, but this happens with every game.

At some point in the development process, the designers have to stop adding new features and content. At this point, the programmers and QA become very busy testing, optimizing, and porting content. In the past, this is the stage where most of the writers, designers, and artists either get fired or get moved to another game.

Instead of firing the content creators, many newer games are deciding to instead have them make more content, to be tested and released separately from the game as DLC. This does not mean that the time that is used to create this is free, or that it is a part of the retail game. In some cases, the designers go back to stuff that was cut from the original game and rework it and fix the problems, because they really didn't want to see it removed in the first place.

While this is happening, the final "gold" version of the game is created. This is the version that first needs to pass the console manufacturers' certifications, and then need to be sent to manufacturing. This can take several weeks. During this time, the programmers and QA can test the DLC content that the rest of the team had been working on. Because they're working off the final version of the game now, and this is just extra content, this process goes a lot faster. It is easily possible that digital content can be tested and ready to be released before the retail versions of the game are even done being manufactured.

But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.

To create this new stuff, it has to be paid for somehow. For The Stone Prisoner, it's being paid for to see if it helps make up for used game sales - a particular problem for a mostly-linear story-based RPG. The Warden's Keep content, on the other hand, is a marketing promotion to sell the more expensive digital collector's edition (sans cloth map). If you aren't 'paying' for the content in one of those two ways, then you should expect to pay for it directly.
Well worth a read.
 

Entropyutd

New member
Apr 12, 2010
189
0
0
z3rostr1fe said:
Downloadable Content, also known as DLC.

DLC's, before the present day, are minor enhancements to a game which you could just buy as an addon. It's like a dessert after a very nice meal.

Nowadays, DLC's are the removed elements of the game which was intended to be sold separately, while the main game is still sold at the same selling rate as a complete game is being sold. Sure, the intention is to rake more money from the games, but really, if you would be doing DLC's, that DLC shouldn't be a large chunk of additional stuff that is supposedly in the complete game being sold. They've got other reasons perhaps... Just tell me...
What games have you honestly played and thought them incomplete without the DLC?
DLC nowdays is so comprehensive and so well developed it leaves people with the feeling something is wrong.

Maybe you'd prefer if they only occasionally released a vehicle or weapon here and there, with perhaps a multiplayer map, but peronally I like having a lot of extra content.
If I don't want to play more, I don't pay for the DLC, but I have never once felt a game actually needed the DLC to make it worth having.
 

z3rostr1fe

New member
Aug 14, 2009
590
0
0
Amnestic said:
Yay, yet another excuse to post this excellent post by Virgil [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083-Dragon-Age-Designer-Says-DLC-Not-Meant-to-Rip-Off-Players#3719305]

Big V said:
I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.

Because of this, there is a set amount of content that can be included in a retail game (which pretty much has a fixed price). This is typically decided early on, and as the game development progresses things are added and removed depending on the difficulties the developer encounters. At each point, a decision is made as to whether X feature is important enough to increase the time/cost of the game development - if it's not, it can get cut from the game. Many of these features might be very cool, and developers can be sad to see them cut, but this happens with every game.

At some point in the development process, the designers have to stop adding new features and content. At this point, the programmers and QA become very busy testing, optimizing, and porting content. In the past, this is the stage where most of the writers, designers, and artists either get fired or get moved to another game.

Instead of firing the content creators, many newer games are deciding to instead have them make more content, to be tested and released separately from the game as DLC. This does not mean that the time that is used to create this is free, or that it is a part of the retail game. In some cases, the designers go back to stuff that was cut from the original game and rework it and fix the problems, because they really didn't want to see it removed in the first place.

While this is happening, the final "gold" version of the game is created. This is the version that first needs to pass the console manufacturers' certifications, and then need to be sent to manufacturing. This can take several weeks. During this time, the programmers and QA can test the DLC content that the rest of the team had been working on. Because they're working off the final version of the game now, and this is just extra content, this process goes a lot faster. It is easily possible that digital content can be tested and ready to be released before the retail versions of the game are even done being manufactured.

But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.

To create this new stuff, it has to be paid for somehow. For The Stone Prisoner, it's being paid for to see if it helps make up for used game sales - a particular problem for a mostly-linear story-based RPG. The Warden's Keep content, on the other hand, is a marketing promotion to sell the more expensive digital collector's edition (sans cloth map). If you aren't 'paying' for the content in one of those two ways, then you should expect to pay for it directly.
Well worth a read.
I didn't mean that the DLC should be free and should be part of the game itself. What I meant was, what if it was really part of their plan by which they will sell a title with shit content and then release the rest of the content that spices up the shit? If the core game was released as shit, people won't buy that game which had some potential. And that's why there is a sparse number of good game titles out in the market, if I am correct. And... And that's why I am bored...

*runs outside*
 

squid5580

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,103
0
41
Entropyutd said:
z3rostr1fe said:
Downloadable Content, also known as DLC.

DLC's, before the present day, are minor enhancements to a game which you could just buy as an addon. It's like a dessert after a very nice meal.

Nowadays, DLC's are the removed elements of the game which was intended to be sold separately, while the main game is still sold at the same selling rate as a complete game is being sold. Sure, the intention is to rake more money from the games, but really, if you would be doing DLC's, that DLC shouldn't be a large chunk of additional stuff that is supposedly in the complete game being sold. They've got other reasons perhaps... Just tell me...
What games have you honestly played and thought them incomplete without the DLC?
DLC nowdays is so comprehensive and so well developed it leaves people with the feeling something is wrong.

Maybe you'd prefer if they only occasionally released a vehicle or weapon here and there, with perhaps a multiplayer map, but peronally I like having a lot of extra content.
If I don't want to play more, I don't pay for the DLC, but I have never once felt a game actually needed the DLC to make it worth having.
Dragon Age Origins and the RTO DLC pack. That should have been on the disc, part of the main game. Not a pack that comes out months after the fact especially since everything was pretty much recycled to begin with.
 

Burgertime

Intellivision Collector
Mar 10, 2010
38
0
0
If the DLC that comes out at the time of the games release is simply an "unlock patch" that we have to play for, then there's a problem. If I'm spending $10 for something that's over 100MB and it was never included on the disc, that's perfectly fine.
Another problem I have with DLC is when it's something that could of easily been an unlockable in the game. Stuff like costumes or a different game mode. Resident Evil 5 had one of it's features right on the disc and was even covered by a strategy guide, yet they charged money to unlock it in the game. Batman Arkham Asylum for the PS3 stuck "Play as the Joker" on the cover (defacing the cover, but that's another complaint all together) but yet you can't play as the Joker right out of the box. You have to use the code they give you inside the case and download the content. Seriously, why couldn't it already be there?!

If Nintendo was doing the same thing Sony and Microsoft was, and Super Mario World was released today, the Star and hidden levels would of been DLC.
 

Jandau

Smug Platypus
Dec 19, 2008
5,030
0
0
First of all, to all the people parroting the "It was developed AFTER the game was finished!", that's not much of an argument. Sure, it is possible, but we can only take the developer's word for it. And do you honestly expect the person who's trying to rip you off to come out and say it? Again, I'm not saying it's always like that, but rather that we can't be sure either way.

Sometimes, they finish the game and then develop some extra stuff while waiting for the game to come out. Then again, sometimes they blatantly rip stuff out so they can charge you extra for it. I'm also quite certain that there is a huge gray area here, where the devs decide to "skip" developing content that was originally planned, so it doesn't get into the initial release.

A few cases to illustrate some of my points:

1. Fallout 3 - The original ending of FO3 could not have been intentional. Bethesda isn't that incompetent or stupid. It was clearly intended to get people to buy the Broken Steel DLC by denying the ending. Imagine going to see a movie and then getting the last 20 minutes cut off, asking you for extra money to see the real ending... The rest of FO3's DLC is an example of how DLC can serve to expand on the game.

2. Assassin's Creed 2 - Seriously, they blatantly skipped two levels of the game and made it obvious by listing the two as unavailable at release. This wasn't something extra that they did in their spare time after finishing the game. This was planned all along.

Another big weakness of DLC is the fact that it'll almost always feel disjointed from the rest of the game. This is especially obvious when the DLC isn't "outside" the main game, but rather takes place at the same time as the game.

Oh, and map packs for FPS games aren't DLC. They are highway robbery.
 

TheSeventhLoneWolf

New member
Mar 1, 2009
2,064
0
0
I just think Of DLC's and Diskless Expansion packs.

Anyone who had a PC for gaming a few years ago would probably knows what I'm on about.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
Jandau said:
First of all, to all the people parroting the "It was developed AFTER the game was finished!", that's not much of an argument. Sure, it is possible, but we can only take the developer's word for it. And do you honestly expect the person who's trying to rip you off to come out and say it? Again, I'm not saying it's always like that, but rather that we can't be sure either way.

Sometimes, they finish the game and then develop some extra stuff while waiting for the game to come out. Then again, sometimes they blatantly rip stuff out so they can charge you extra for it. I'm also quite certain that there is a huge gray area here, where the devs decide to "skip" developing content that was originally planned, so it doesn't get into the initial release.

A few cases to illustrate some of my points:

1. Fallout 3 - The original ending of FO3 could not have been intentional. Bethesda isn't that incompetent or stupid. It was clearly intended to get people to buy the Broken Steel DLC by denying the ending. Imagine going to see a movie and then getting the last 20 minutes cut off, asking you for extra money to see the real ending... The rest of FO3's DLC is an example of how DLC can serve to expand on the game.
errrmm...no.

Broken steel is a nice feature to add on to FO3 but the story itself ended when you or someone else activates the purifier, does anything else happen thats is relavant to the main storyline in BS? no, nothing its just nice to have.

If you are going to argue the fact you couldn't continue on after activating the purifier without BS, then boo hoo, reload the latest save then continue to do things other than the main story line.

If you actually listened to the narrative at the end, the narrative would state very heavily that it was the "end of the story", what happens in BS is told in conclusion, a off topic story that is not viewed under past tense,3rd person or narrative view thus it would mean that BS was a clip show with special guests (and the odd improvement)
 

Jandau

Smug Platypus
Dec 19, 2008
5,030
0
0
mad825 said:
I disagree with you on Broken Steel. You can't continue playing afterwards in vanilla FO3 (which is a either a huge oversight or intentional), and the mechanic that lets you survive the Purifier in Broken Steel is something that should have been in the original game. There was no reason for it not to be in there.

Basically, we can only take Bethesda's word for it.
 

squid5580

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,103
0
41
666Chaos said:
squid5580 said:
Entropyutd said:
z3rostr1fe said:
Downloadable Content, also known as DLC.

DLC's, before the present day, are minor enhancements to a game which you could just buy as an addon. It's like a dessert after a very nice meal.

Nowadays, DLC's are the removed elements of the game which was intended to be sold separately, while the main game is still sold at the same selling rate as a complete game is being sold. Sure, the intention is to rake more money from the games, but really, if you would be doing DLC's, that DLC shouldn't be a large chunk of additional stuff that is supposedly in the complete game being sold. They've got other reasons perhaps... Just tell me...
What games have you honestly played and thought them incomplete without the DLC?
DLC nowdays is so comprehensive and so well developed it leaves people with the feeling something is wrong.

Maybe you'd prefer if they only occasionally released a vehicle or weapon here and there, with perhaps a multiplayer map, but peronally I like having a lot of extra content.
If I don't want to play more, I don't pay for the DLC, but I have never once felt a game actually needed the DLC to make it worth having.
Dragon Age Origins and the RTO DLC pack. That should have been on the disc, part of the main game. Not a pack that comes out months after the fact especially since everything was pretty much recycled to begin with.
It was fairly obvious when playing the game that RTO was something that was made after the game. We are also ignoring the fact that it came out several months after DA:O came out aswell. It was much bigger then the normal side quests but the same as the other two pieces of dlc that came out the same time as the game was released. What your suggestig here is stupid. You want something that was created after the game was released to have been on the disk and free.

People, stop bitching about DLC, your not being forced to buy it and unless its already on the disk then its generally created after the game went gold. Once a game goes gold alot of the development team has 3 options. Get fired, creat dlc or work on a new game. The only reason people are complaining is because once the game goes gold the dlc gets worked on right away and its becoming more immersive with the origional game.
I don't care if it was made, before during or after launch. It should have been on the disc. It was such an important part of the main story (I mean c'mon we should have been making that return long before Landsmeet). That is what pissed me off about that specific DLC pack. Warden's Keep was a fine addition to DA. The new one looks interesting (play as a darkspawn sign me up). And if you notice both are stand alone stories. They have no impact on the plot. And for the record it was supposed to come out before X-Mas. Unfortunately there was a bug, Sony takes to long to get stuff through (they were planning a multi plat release) and that is why it took so long to get.

As a rule I like DLC but sometimes they are made of fail. And what about disc locked content DLC? That completely shuts down your little rant about how DLC is so good. RE5 and Bioshock 2 both pulled this. I would rather see DLC come out ASAP opposed to 6 months later. When I am done with the game and have moved on I don't want to have to remember everything again. And I won't be playing through the whole game again. I am far too ADD for that (and it doesn't help my backlog in the least).

I do understand it though. I get it. Pop in Alan wake and put in the code and you get a message saying it won't be out for another month (along with a very nice thank you for buying new video from the devs). And so that means if I want the full Alan Wake experience I have to hang on to the copy for a month. Hurting the used game sellers. Sure I already have the full game but that isn't the same. At least not to me.
 

Penguinness

New member
May 25, 2010
984
0
0
I was playing dragonage the other day and this npc was asking for help so I went okay and it was like "Okay, just buy this DLC"... pissed me off.
 

loooooowwww

New member
Dec 10, 2009
186
0
0
Furburt said:
Actually, they aren't. DLC are designed during the period when the main game is under testing and refinement. The team that made it has nothing to do, so instead of doing nothing, they design more content for the game while they wait. This is how DLC comes about.

You can't expect them to not get paid for that, can you?
well what totally blows that out of the water is assasins creed 2, the dlc for that was clearly meant to suck money out of people. i was more pissed that i had to wait two months to properly finish a game than i was about the cost why not just have charged 60 euro instead of 50 on release day i would still have bought it and so wud everyone else.