Would the gaming industry be better off without dlc?
- Thread starter Cheesus Crust
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When you said hate in 1 hour, I've sorta experienced something similar before. Like "This DLC is going to be so awesome!" 1 hour later "I just got ripped off". The fact that I can relate to what you said in such a condensed form I dunno, sorta made me chuckle.Strazdas said:
Let's talk about absolutely finishing, testing and polishing the game before we talk about extras...
Well said DoPo. I'll agree with you.DoPo said:
I do get annoyed at the whining about DLC.
If you don't agree with it, don't buy it. And then let us make the decision on our own.
Huh, I think I can agree with you there.DoPo said:
I'm certainly all for DLC that provide engaging experiences within (and sometimes without) the paramaters of an already engaging game.
It's just, with the bug addled state of quite a few modern releases, you start to wonder whether those resources would have been better spent in ironing out the bugs and issues, rather than designing and implementing go-faster stripes that will, if anything, need additional tweaking for compatibility.
But I suppose that's kinda relative to the release schedule.
We do have those moments with DLC these days, like with the From Ashes DLC for ME3, where the developer backs up their decision to make the DLC by saying the game was already packed up and in the publisher approval process, so making the DLC pretty much became a way to stay occupied with... something. Kinda hard to tweak and polish at that point, unless you're gonna go ahead and make the released product look a little bit weird by immediately putting out a bugfix patch, heh.PieBrotherTB said:
OK, I have a disagreement here but also an acknowledgement. So sort of like a clarification on that point, dunno. Game releases have been buggy for quite a while, it's not a modern thing. The whole reason why I don't get a game on day 1 or near is because of the buggy releases in the past - I just got used to waiting for several weeks, or maybe a month or two, since games could be from choppy to actually broken, and patches would be of varying quality, too. Even then, unstable connection meant I had to rely on either a friend, or a gaming magazine to put them on the CDs...so next month, maybe. So, simply put, buggy games are nothing new, nor are buggy releases.PieBrotherTB said:
Then again, you would have thought that after, like a decade, things should be better. And that's a decade for me, gaming has been going for more than this.
Then again again people are still struggling with delivering reasonably bug free software. But considering the gaming industry is behind on the general software...well, things don't look that promising.
Oh I'm not meaning to suggest that older releases weren't bug-free; I guess that; especially in the AAA market, or even just in the market of physical releases; the developers and/or publishers would now have the ability to implement fixes, whereas six or seven years ago that was quite a drawn out and PC-exlusive process until this console generation. It's not necessarily that they choose not to do that, I mean, by the time they've got all the work dealing with the release done, supporting the game by patching it is going to end up being a money drain, regardless of the improvements that they make on the game, hence why DLC is perhaps more important to publishers post-release, in financial terms.DoPo said:
What seems strange is that upcoming DLC seems to be being used as a promotional tool either on release or within a week of release; I mean, clearly it works, but that only provides a short-term boost to sales, rather than rejuvenating sales further down the line, which could quite possibly be a larger amount; CoD at least staggers the release of its map packs, but perhaps what a franchise that popular does and indeed when it does it is irrelevant to anything else.
Actually, considering the state of the financial world, that's not really strange at all. Ho hum.
While I would prefer no more DLC, or Patches whatsoever, it cannot happen.
My ideal reality is one where a game is fully realized, fully tested and tweaked, and fully supported as a stand alone, self-contained vessel of its creator's intent and a scale by which to measure their abilities for any future projects.
If they want sales, they need to put out a solid product, that runs perfectly without needing a dozen patches to fix stuff that never should have made it past pre-alpha testing, and to have all the modes, items, skins, maps etc. that the team can possibly come up with within the set development cycle.
If they want to make another game, they need to make the first one solid from DAY ONE not push out something "acceptable" and then rely on what are essentially microtransactions to get the revenue to tip the scales on getting a new project greenlit.
You don't make a chess game, and offer Queens as a pre-order bonus, or a brand new checkers mode 30 days later. You expect to buy the finished game, with all the pieces, with one purchase. You shouldn't have to wait for a patch to allow your knights to finally stop killing themselves and turning over the board so to speak.
And any ideas that were any good, that somehow didn't make it into the game would be good sequel material.
I know this fantasy world, which actually used to exist prior to the current (undying) console generation, is horribly archaic and unreasonable to most people.
I understand the huge benifits to the current system, when utilized properly. For every 30 crappy DLC offerings to Capcom, Koei, and NIS games that ammount to pure cash grabs on content already realized and coded into the fucking game you already bought, we get the occausional Shivering Isle or Mechromancer DLC.
Games that have glitches can be fixed, and usually its a minor thing or a balance tweak or just a temporary event or something fun. In a few cases it can be a year later and the updates can not only fail to fix much of anything, but actually BREAK things that WERE working.
But its better to have the option right? To have the option of letting companies release garbage that doesn't work on day one because they can theorectically, and with MAJOR time/money investments fix it at some undetermined time if at all? Instead of, ya know as consumers and share holders etc, to hold them accountable to SOME kind of quality standard like in pretty much every other kind of business.
Sure, we may get the occausional unfixable game like Black Sigil: Blade of the Exiled that will have its glitches forever, but I'd rather have an awesome game with a few minor bugs that never crashes to a game that sells me the ending, half the cast, half the map, and half the items as DLC and only runs whenever the fuck it feels like it.
My ideal reality is one where a game is fully realized, fully tested and tweaked, and fully supported as a stand alone, self-contained vessel of its creator's intent and a scale by which to measure their abilities for any future projects.
If they want sales, they need to put out a solid product, that runs perfectly without needing a dozen patches to fix stuff that never should have made it past pre-alpha testing, and to have all the modes, items, skins, maps etc. that the team can possibly come up with within the set development cycle.
If they want to make another game, they need to make the first one solid from DAY ONE not push out something "acceptable" and then rely on what are essentially microtransactions to get the revenue to tip the scales on getting a new project greenlit.
You don't make a chess game, and offer Queens as a pre-order bonus, or a brand new checkers mode 30 days later. You expect to buy the finished game, with all the pieces, with one purchase. You shouldn't have to wait for a patch to allow your knights to finally stop killing themselves and turning over the board so to speak.
And any ideas that were any good, that somehow didn't make it into the game would be good sequel material.
I know this fantasy world, which actually used to exist prior to the current (undying) console generation, is horribly archaic and unreasonable to most people.
I understand the huge benifits to the current system, when utilized properly. For every 30 crappy DLC offerings to Capcom, Koei, and NIS games that ammount to pure cash grabs on content already realized and coded into the fucking game you already bought, we get the occausional Shivering Isle or Mechromancer DLC.
Games that have glitches can be fixed, and usually its a minor thing or a balance tweak or just a temporary event or something fun. In a few cases it can be a year later and the updates can not only fail to fix much of anything, but actually BREAK things that WERE working.
But its better to have the option right? To have the option of letting companies release garbage that doesn't work on day one because they can theorectically, and with MAJOR time/money investments fix it at some undetermined time if at all? Instead of, ya know as consumers and share holders etc, to hold them accountable to SOME kind of quality standard like in pretty much every other kind of business.
Sure, we may get the occausional unfixable game like Black Sigil: Blade of the Exiled that will have its glitches forever, but I'd rather have an awesome game with a few minor bugs that never crashes to a game that sells me the ending, half the cast, half the map, and half the items as DLC and only runs whenever the fuck it feels like it.
I think good DLC's are ones that use the game as a jumping off point or as a bonus for the player. So good ones are fallout 3 and skyrim DLC from Bethesda. Additional stuff they thought would be need to add after they finished the game and effectively act as a reason to keep intrest in the game.
The free ME2 day one DLCs I was okay with as it was just away of trying to rewarding customer loyalty by ensuring they buy first hand copies, and the post-endgame DLC like Lair of the Shadow Broker were fantastic and felt like they had a purpose. They also felt justified as DLC as if they were in the original game, they would have undermined the climax of the game, but a later release date ensured they were effectively seen as a next stage.
Bad ones are simply cash ins on stuff the developers meant to put in to the original game. Such as ME3's day one DLC which you had to pay for. That should have just been free and was a move to just bleed more money out of people. Another example is AC2's DLC battle of Forli and Bonfire of the Vanities. They were meant to be in the game but the developer didn't finish them in time, so dodgily skipped over them and then you had to pay for them.
Overall I think DLC is a good thing, but it's a little irritating that when a new game comes out it is automatically expected to produce DLC for it as well.
The free ME2 day one DLCs I was okay with as it was just away of trying to rewarding customer loyalty by ensuring they buy first hand copies, and the post-endgame DLC like Lair of the Shadow Broker were fantastic and felt like they had a purpose. They also felt justified as DLC as if they were in the original game, they would have undermined the climax of the game, but a later release date ensured they were effectively seen as a next stage.
Bad ones are simply cash ins on stuff the developers meant to put in to the original game. Such as ME3's day one DLC which you had to pay for. That should have just been free and was a move to just bleed more money out of people. Another example is AC2's DLC battle of Forli and Bonfire of the Vanities. They were meant to be in the game but the developer didn't finish them in time, so dodgily skipped over them and then you had to pay for them.
Overall I think DLC is a good thing, but it's a little irritating that when a new game comes out it is automatically expected to produce DLC for it as well.
Done right I think DLC can be used to make a game relevant in your collection for much longer than it would without it. In the end I can just not purchase the DLC if I it doesn't interest me; voting with my wallet and what not. However, the specter is always there that a dev will deliberately give you a fraction of the game just to gouge money out of you. I'm looking at you Sims3 with your absurd amount of over priced expansions, insultingly sparse base game, and micro transaction item store. Seriously, I refuse to put another cent into that game on principle; all the "expansions" together cost upwards of $430. Its frustrating at times when I want more selection for my Sims houses and I've got only about ten items in a category to work with. That they oh so helpful display their micro transaction items alongside it is even more infuriating, like they're fucking taunting me, so I went through the options and turned off everything that's designed to shill their bullshit.
Yes, Street Fighter vs Tekken included the complete version of all the downloadable characters 6 months down the line. Some hackers discovered how to unlock them and they where even usable online.Cheesus Crust said:
I don't know if there are other examples (Yoda/Darth Vader in SC4 come to mind) but in most cases, we can't really know (although we can suspect based on the size of the DLC)...
I personally feel like DLC are the embodiment of what is wrong with the gaming industry. They do add things, i will give it to them for that, but they are making us pay more for the game that we should have been given in the first place. There is even some proof that some of the DLCs were going to be apart of the game in the first place... i.e. Omega DLC for Mass Effect 3. I agree that they are the new name for what was expansion packs, but at least those brought more to the table than maybe a new mission and weapon in most games. Call of Duty is the biggest offender. More money just to make a games multiplayer last longer. I hope that one day we work our way out of this hole we have found ourselves in. But until then I guess I'll just spend 60 USD for half of a game.
No. Arbitrarily limiting the options the games industry has is not going to improve it. On top of that, the concept of DLC and what constitutes a DLC, an expansion pack, an episodic series, or anything that involves multiple discrete portions to a game is ill defined. On top of that what constitutes good or bad DLC is a coin flip. Right now customers are usually completely ignorant of how game development works (No, STFU, I know that's true, even game development students don't start out knowing jack squat), and there scared that DLC represents some major down fall. There are so many argument against it based on "I think this company is doing X horrible thing" when they have no evidence to suggest that's the case. All this hate against DLC strikes me as knee jerk reaction and what's more is that with time DLC could lead to different monitization models for games and could end the tendency of a one-time sale for games which pervades in everything except MMOs.
I don't know about that. After all DLC could just be the natural evolution of the old fashioned expansion pack, however having said that I do think the concept has been greatly abused by many companies.
Ignoring the pricing, quality, or method of distribution, the main thing I don't like about piecemeal DLC is the way it's integrated.
It's supposed be "just another item/mission/companion/map", but because it's something people pay for, different rules apply - items get dumped into your backpack at the start, breaking gear progression and missing out on an opportunity for a cool reward through questing or exploration. The missions are set up in such a way they can be immediately accessed, from anywhere from any point in the story, so they're severed from the rest of the game and a meaningful connection with the plot, same with the companions. And map packs in games coupled with matchmaking really limit the amount of people you can play with.
This is all a direct result of these little content additions having a price tag, and it's why I love that The Witcher games' Enhanced Editions are free. Not because I can get them without paying, but because the developers can make changes and additions without fretting over "how does this justify the price tag", "how does it compare to our previous paid DLC", "how will we ensure every player accesses it" and so on. The end result is an overall improved, polished and cohesive game, rather than an outdated core with a bunch of gimmicks held together by duct tape.
It's supposed be "just another item/mission/companion/map", but because it's something people pay for, different rules apply - items get dumped into your backpack at the start, breaking gear progression and missing out on an opportunity for a cool reward through questing or exploration. The missions are set up in such a way they can be immediately accessed, from anywhere from any point in the story, so they're severed from the rest of the game and a meaningful connection with the plot, same with the companions. And map packs in games coupled with matchmaking really limit the amount of people you can play with.
This is all a direct result of these little content additions having a price tag, and it's why I love that The Witcher games' Enhanced Editions are free. Not because I can get them without paying, but because the developers can make changes and additions without fretting over "how does this justify the price tag", "how does it compare to our previous paid DLC", "how will we ensure every player accesses it" and so on. The end result is an overall improved, polished and cohesive game, rather than an outdated core with a bunch of gimmicks held together by duct tape.