The Anti-Anti-DLC Movement!

[Pipotchi]

DLCs are inherently doomed to failed. The basic idea about DLCs are that they should expand the game, right? Thing is; if they continue to build the main story, that means you're buying an incomplete game. This will piss people off.

However, if you expand the game through side-stories, few people will be ready to pay 10-15 bucks for just an extra quest/mission and/or a few items. As such, it just wouldn't be economically viable to make DLCs, rather than start making a sequal, or just another game in general.

Personally, I only buy DLCs by buying a Game of the Year edition or some such, where you get the full game plus all DLCs for just slightly more than what the game cost at retail without DLCs.

Ah Yes DLC is doomed to failure, thats why its developed into a billion dollar industry from a standing start in the last few years.

DLC is here to stay even with Rip off versions and Day one DLC, it makes a tonne of money and fickle consumers will bend over and take it. All we can hope is that some developers do it right Like Rockstar, undead nightmare was awesome and Liberty city stories as well

 

[Something Amyss]

So here's my question: Riddle me this! (Yes, I've been playing too much Arkham City, shut up) What company, video game, and/or franchise WOULD you buy DLC for?

Not even a hypothetical, I have tons of DLC. More than my fair share of downloadable games, which you're not counting, but also content. Fallout 3 offered beefy content for the price on its DLC, so I bought it. Saints Row 2 offered me a great world, so more of it seemed a given. They even gave us the last pack free. IT was only clothes and stuff, but it was still nice.

Rock Band takes up more space on my HDD than I'd like to admit, and I've spent way more than I care to admit, but especially now with pro modes, I think it's worth the amount of time I'm gonna put into it.

I can't think of more examples offhand, but I have tons of DLC for various titles. I'm just too lazy to boot up my Xbox and sift through. I even own expansions for MTG: DOTP, a downloadable title in itself.

I really do live by the concept that if you make a good game, it makes me want more of it. If you make good DLC, I will buy it.

On the flip side, you could go the Army of Two route. I liked the 40th Day, honest. I know I'm a minority here, but I would have liked DLC. Especially after they gave us a freebie with the first title. An actual freebie, not one of those "Catwoman" freebies. But TFD was bugged, bad. Having visited the official site, EA had made clear there were to be no more big fixes, while some major ones still existed. They then came to us with their hands out, saying "buy our DLC." Ten bucks for a game where they wouldn't do more bugfixes and the DLC itself was glitched. No. Bad.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Atlus if it was a good enough game and warranted it.

 

[NickCaligo42]

DLC ain't worth my time. I've been let down the few times I've done it: LittleBigPlanet, Force Unleashed, and at least one other game that I just plum forget. Either make a new game or don't bother. This shit feels like a crapshoot more than a legitimate product.

 

[omicron1]

I will buy any DLC that expands singleplayer (not multiplayer!) gameplay (new mechanics, not new weapons!), playable area, or content. For instance, the Shivering Isles expansion is just about perfect; but the typical "Pay $5 for a different looking gun" junk is worthless.

 

[FallenTraveler]

The most dlc I have purchased has been for Borderlands and Fallout 3. I LOVED THOSE GAMES! I would buy dlc for arkham asylum/city were they extensions to the singleplayer experience/story. Other games I will buy dlc for - Payday: The Heist (I find it to be AWESOME, perfect leveling system and the controls feel great on ps3. I will also buy dlc for Dungeon Defenders... I am literally addicted.

I do not have a problem with dlc in the slightest if it is done right though. As long as it provides new and substantial content that extends my enjoyment I will buy it. I do not need map packs for multiplayer games necessarily though, but that might just be that I feel more comfortable on a pc with custom maps... like TF2.

On a bit of a side note, I HATE TF2's shop system, I just despise it, it's slightly overpriced and doesn't feel like it is worth the money.

 

[squid5580]

There's a BIG difference between the Catwoman debacle and the Cerberus system.

And what would that be? Don't have either one and you lose out on a extra character and extra weapons.

 

[Googenstien]

DLC for RPG type games for me is the best as it adds more content,levels, spells, items, and quests.. instead of just a few new maps for multiplayer or even worse skins, hats, and any decorative items which see to be all the rage. Even MMOs have decorative items or mounts to buy at $25 a pop.

 

[Pandabearparade]

I'd buy DLC for a game that is awesome enough to merit more content. I'm sure Skyrim will be such a game.

 

[The Lunatic]

Very rarely do I buy DLC.

I can think of one example, that'd be borderlands, which expanded the game quite significantly, and I bought it when it was on steam sale.

 

[Michael Hirst]

I've bought DLC for a grand total of 2 games so far.

Undead Nightmare on Red Dead Redemption which lasted me about 8 hours which I consider a good length and the content of the DLC itself varied to wildly from the original game that it gave a whole different experience. Brilliant DLC, for £8 it was definitely worth it.

Fallout New Vegas, at £7.50 a pop the DLC's are on the expensive side for my liking however during the Steam summer sale I picked up Dead Money and Honest Hearts for £2.50 each. Dead Money added a survivalist aspect that I felt was absent in the main storyline (due to an over abundance of supplies even on hardcore mode) and introduced several interesting companion characters. IT had a few problems, like boring areas but overall was a good little story and I had fun with it, lasted about 4-5 hours so about the length of your standard COD title

Honest Hearts was a much more expansive DLC and added more gampelay like the style of the main story mode and finally let me keep some of my gear to start off, I think this is the better of the two DLC's I bought and the character, especially the Burnt Man were great, I loved getting some meaty background on the Fallout world and shining a light on some of the more Tribal elements that tend to get overlooked because of Ghouls/Super Mutants etc.

DLC I hate? Overpriced Costume Packs and Map Packs, completely ridiculous, to keep up with the community in Killzone/COD titles you need to purchase £30-£40 worth of map packs, it's an absolute farce, they should be much cheaper, no more than £1 per map in the pack. Maybe I'm spoiled by UT2004's great community making great maps for free and Valve constantly updating TF2 with free maps but I shouldn't have to spend £80 to have a games full experience.

 

[Delsana]

DLC that's worth it and not 15 dollars (unless ultra worth it) is what I care about.

All the DLC for New Vegas was a failure in my eyes... just wasn't worth the price and had poor quality.

The Missing Link for Deus Ex was too expensive (10 would of been better pricing) but was definitely good, but it wasn't a 10 on the DLC chart so much as a 7.5 - 8.

Broken Steel for Fallout 3 was good in my eyes, all the other stuff was crap, though Anchorage allowed for a new experience style but still...

Not much DLC is all that good to be honest.

 

[Something Amyss]

There's a BIG difference between the Catwoman debacle and the Cerberus system.

And what would that be? Don't have either one and you lose out on a extra character and extra weapons.

For one, one of them was advertised both as a "seamless" element of the single player game and a significant (10%) portion by the people putting the game out (And THEN recently announced it would be Online pass style DLC), while the other was not.

I'd buy DLC for a game that is awesome enough to merit more content. I'm sure Skyrim will be such a game.

It's like, if you make good games, people will want more.

But I'm probably talking crazy. >.>

 

[SageRuffin]

I like the odd bit of DLC, but mostly in the way of expansion packs (e.g. the stuff for Fallout 3) or little bits and bobs that add variety to the game (color and costume packs for fighting games). Long and short, if I like the game enough, I'll go ahead and grab extra stuff for it.

Unless it's unlock keys. I only do that if I have some extra points to kick around. Otherwise they can go fuck off.

 

[AngryPants]

As soon as DLC is properly priced it'll have its legitimate right to exist. If the main game is... let's say 60 hours long in first playthrough (Dragon Age Origins for example), any DLC offered for 10 bucks is supposed to have 10 hours of gameplay.

But, as well all know, most of DA DLC were 2-3 hours long, which is a rip-off at the very least. Considering that at this point developer has complete toolkit available, plenty of resources to work with (textures, animations, gameplay mechanics), it can be even cheaper. I'm not even mentioning stupid things like... armor recolors that any modder can (and ARE doing) for free.

For as long as DLC is considered to be a way to grab extra cash without doing much of work, it'll still suck, but some people will still buy it I guess...

I'd personally prefer more replayability in games instead, but that's just me.

 

[jpoon]

The only way I ever buy DLC is if it's actually worth the cash. So I'm pretty much saying it's damn rare. Dev's just use DLC as the easy cash button, anyone can see that.

 

[Toriver]

I've got DLC for a few of my games. I know I have some for Soul Calibur 4, Dragon Age: Origins, and BlazBlue: Continuum Shift, and I think I have some for a few other games too.

Sure, there are a few types of DLC I don't support, such as DLC already on the disk and locking off non-minor game features to people who only purchased the game new or from a certain retailer. However, there are good things about DLC. It is a good distribution tool for content that perhaps wasn't able to fit on the disk at launch, and if a game is popular, such as with Dragon Age, it's a way to add content developed after the game's launch. If the game has unforeseen bugs that the testers didn't catch, it's also a way to deliver patches to fix it, though I would hope all game patch bugs are free. Essentially, after the core game, it's a way for gamers to purchase improvements to their game that they want and not get saddled with other changes they don't want. Don't want to add an extra character you won't be playing as to a game? Don't buy it. Heard too many bad things about an extra level? Don't buy that either. Simple as that. Supporting the banning of all DLC over a few inconvenient varieties of it is taking opposition too far, IMO.

 

[tzimize]

All this talk about not paying DLC for locked content. It is mostly justified. Though, it does make me wonder if you would by DLC at all?

So here's my question: Riddle me this! (Yes, I've been playing too much Arkham City, shut up) What company, video game, and/or franchise WOULD you buy DLC for?

I ain't talking downloadable games, those are different, I mean add-on content for an already existing game or downloads that unlock such content?

My pick would be Rocksteady Games. They've made 2 of the most fantastic games ever, and one underrated gem. I have bought all the DLC for Arkham Asylum and intend to do the same for Arkham City (don't worry, I'll shut up about the game eventually). Why? Because Rocksteady deserves that money; I they've went beyond the expectations of many gamers and Batman fans alike to make a game that not just qualifies as a Batman game, but also a true work of art (in my opinion). I want them to use this money to continue making such fantastic games!

The thing is, while the games are great...the DLC is usually crap. If you want them to have money, buy another copy of the game. I've bought several of Arkham Asylum.

If you buy DLC you are just encouraging them to make more sub-par content, not more awesome games.

The only DLC I would EVER consider buying, is tracks for rock band/guitar hero. And not at a premium price.

This is content that literally gives more value to the game, in a way that is not sub-par. Its more of the same game, with tunes you specifically want. If I owned rock band, I'd probably buy tracks for it that I liked.

Other than that, I cant think of a single worth-while DLC.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

DLC works if they are
A: Cheap
B: Add Worth vile Content
Now must DLC fails at A (i swear i see DLC for 20 bucks) but some har good

Pretty much this. The best priced DLC Content for a game I found was Borderlands - for £6, you basically get a new area, new missions and new weapons to go with it. That same price tag is being paid out for some of the Skin Packs with Dawn of War II: Retribution. And they are just Skin Packs.

The worst priced DLC I've seen though is anything Enix publishes. Front Mission Evolved expect us to pay £4 for a mere two new robots, and they're repeating this with Deus Ex: Human Revolution - the new DLC, Missing Link goes for nearly £10. For the price of an Indie Game or small Expansion Pack, you get a few extra hours and that's all. No new weapons, augs or anything else to justify the price tag.

 

[Slowpool]

The idea is astoundingly irritating. If you're paying full price for a game, you should get a full game. Adding extra stuff periodically that really has no excuse for not being in the game at release for an additional $toomany is just dickish. The worst part is that it WORKS.