Would the gaming industry be better off without dlc?

[SweetShark]

Well, I have always this example in my mind if someone ask for DLC:

Before DLC----Okami is a very beatiful and unique title and you must play it 100+ to finish the game.
After DLC-----Okami is a very beatiful and unique title............you play the first 30 hours, then you must pay extra money to play the others parts of the game.

I think we must appreciate some games as we see them for te first time. If for example had DLC and the developers wanted from us to pay some extra cash to see the whole story.......f*ck them hard like a hurricane!!!!
But if a DLC is for some extra things like an alternative story or something similar, I don't have a problem with that.

EDIT: I know Okami doesn't have DLC. I just saying that what would happened if it had.

 

[Terramax]

I see DLC as a case by case basis.

If a game has been specifically designed and sold in such a way that the player cannot enjoy the full product without having to shell out a second wad of cash - I think that's wrong, unless stated very clearly so. For instance, Ridge Racer on the Vita deliberately came with only 3 courses, with the intent of putting other courses for sale at extra price straight away.

However, things like extra multiplayer maps that weren't thought out until after the sale of the initial product, which is designed to enhance the experience or lifespan of the community, is fine in my books.

 

[thiosk]

DLC is just a faster delivery model than expansion packs. Not inherently bad, but oft misused.

 

[go-10]

why is is called DLC? Downloadable Content, that's 2 words its acronym should be DC...

ANYWAYS, no we wouldn't be better of without it, look for all the threads whenever Capcom announced another Street Fighter, or whenever companies release the same game with some add ons and charge you $40 instead of some $10 DC

 

[Yopaz]

I don't mind it, because I don't have a compulsive need to buy it. There's a DLC package and it seems like something that would improve my overall opinion of the game? Bring it.
Sure the game could be released with the content already there, but this offers a chance to improve on a game after its release. Also as earlier stated, no-one is forcing you to buy DLC.

 

[rob_simple]

Like everything else that's been making waves in the past few years --particularly motion controls-- the concept itself is a great idea, but it's implementation is often sloppy and/or a blatant cash-grab by companies.

The only DLC I've ever bought for a game was for the original Borderlands. I got the three expansions in a bundle for £18 and it was worth every penny because --aside from Moxxi's Underdome which was useless to me-- the DLC was very well made, had a lot of replay value and added more content to a game I already loved.

The thing I object to most about DLC is when companies charge money for something that would have been free ten years ago. The best example I've seen recently was Batman: Arkham City's alternate suit DLC: £10 for six or seven different skins that, in the last generation, would have been unlockables for achieving certain things in the game.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Removing the ability for games to have DLC would be like banning all comedy shows from existing because some comedians are terrible; it's an overkill solution that, in the end, won't actually eliminate the problem. What we should be doing is shunning companies who attempt to blindfold customers into buying DLC which is BS.

 

[EHKOS]

I only like the true, expansion pack-esque DLC. For all the shitty skin packs there's MInerva's Den, Point Lookout, General Knoxx, and Skyfall mission (which was actually the best part of that game, and it was FREE)

 

[Kyber]

Two words: Shivering Isles.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

It's just, with the bug addled state of quite a few modern releases

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.

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.

I remember going out to buy magazine with Discs that had patches for games that I had. I other instances I went out and bought gold editions just so I could have the most up to date game.

This idea that games are released broken now is nonsense. Games are always released with bugs and glitches, some more notably then others. As far back as the Megadrive (Genesis) I picked up games that were essentially broken. Heck, AVGN and other youtubers wouldn't have their job if it wasn't for the monumental number of blatantly broken and untested games there were.

The fact is, even casual gamers are more in the know about the flaws in games now. I imagine if they didn't make those blatantly obvious notifications of patches people would have been oblivious to this "problem".

OP: DLC is fine in theory, people just need to get smart about the value of content. Value should be measured by how much it actually offers to the players experience, not just how long it distracts them. A map pack may offer a couple of new map variations, and though you may play these maps for many hours, you will have very quickly seen all there is to see. 20 bucks for some aesthetic variety? No thanks. 5~ bucks? Yeah, we can talk.

A good DLC offers new ways to play, not just new themes or aesthetics. Expansive DLC is always going to be better back for your buck then light weight DLC packs. There is a place for the small packs, but the pricing seriously needs to get nipped in the ass.

There is a tendency to exploit the rather naive console market with overpriced low content DLC. There are also some shady practices that we hear about, which does a lot to damage the integrity of the DLC market. This is why long time gamers (particularly PC gamers) can be so vehemently against DLC and refuse to indulge them or demand a return to the classic expansion packs. Not because DLC is inherently bad, but that it is being exploited and will continue to be exploited until consumers get wise.

 

[DoPo]

why is is called DLC? Downloadable Content, that's 2 words its acronym should be DC...

Well, "download" is often shortened to some form of a d and an l - d/l, DL, dl or similar. It makes perfect sense.

Removing the ability for games to have DLC would be like banning all comedy shows from existing because some comedians are terrible; it's an overkill solution that, in the end, won't actually eliminate the problem. What we should be doing is shunning companies who attempt to blindfold customers into buying DLC which is BS.

Exactly my thoughts. And yet I keep seeing people here who go "All DLC is bad because some DLC is bad". case in point

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...

So there is evidence that some DLC was initially to be part if the whole game, that somehow means that all DLC ever was initially to be part of the whole game. Hence why all DLC is bad.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

And the nice thing about bad DLC? You don't have to buy it!

Actually that depends. Map packs for FPS games are DLC and in most cases, you can't continue to play multiplayer until you have the new DLC.

Example: I had all the map DLCs for Halo Reach, but my cousin didn't. Every time my cousin wanted to play Reach with me, he was limited on what game types he could play with me. So, if I wanted to play on new maps, he couldn't play with me.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

I would prefer that DLC were priced more efficiently. I would also prefer that patches happened much less often. These are console games, not MMOs.(and now I wait for people to come at me with FFXI/IV)

I do hate DLC more often than not, but that's mostly because it's crap that isn't worth the price tag. The only DLC I buy is the little extra shit you don't really need, but makes the game easier/more fun. Like the little extra DLC for Tales of Graces f. The extra GRADE Shop bonuses that you can purchase. I'll buy little things like that because why the hell not? But if you're going to promise me a giant expansion, I want a giant expansion.

 

[Aesir23]

I'm actually quite indifferent in regards to DLC. I certainly prefer more substantial DLCs like quests (decent ones) over things like a small pack of items but most of the time I never even look at the DLC unless I really like the game.

The only type of DLC that I don't like is where it's very noticeable that it was already on the disk. Most of the time I don't even notice disk-locked content because it's just not there. So the only example I have for this is Dragon Age: Origins. Those few times where there was a quest giver and a message would pop up saying I needed to purchase the quest for a game I'd just paid $60 for annoyed me beyond all belief.

People really rag on Capcom for Day One DLC and Disk-Locked content but DA:O is the only game I've come across where it was really noticeable. I'm not saying that people should rag on Bioware for it too but that singling out almost any company for DLC is just ridiculous.

Though I do wish that certain Capcom games *cough*Dragon'sDogma*cough* had better DLC than what's currently available.

 

[DoPo]

The only type of DLC that I don't like is where it's very noticeable that it was already on the disk. Most of the time I don't even notice disk-locked content because it's just not there. So the only example I have for this is Dragon Age: Origins. Those few times where there was a quest giver and a message would pop up saying I needed to purchase the quest for a game I'd just paid $60 for annoyed me beyond all belief.

Erm, that wasn't really content on the disc - you still have to go and download it. I played through the game once, then started a second playthrough (never finished it, but whatever) and got an advertisement I never saw before. It was after a new DLC was released that week. I think it was Return to Ostagar but I may be mistaking - I'm looked through the DLC and picked the earliest one one that I haven't played.

Unless you mean to suggest that BioWare somehow placed the content on the disc and only advertising it after a set amount of time passed. You know what, I'm actually OK with that. It takes real commitment to make a whole DLC, then put it on the disc with the game, and hold out for several months until you actually announce its release and allow people access to it.

 

[Aesir23]

The only type of DLC that I don't like is where it's very noticeable that it was already on the disk. Most of the time I don't even notice disk-locked content because it's just not there. So the only example I have for this is Dragon Age: Origins. Those few times where there was a quest giver and a message would pop up saying I needed to purchase the quest for a game I'd just paid $60 for annoyed me beyond all belief.

Erm, that wasn't really content on the disc - you still have to go and download it. I played through the game once, then started a second playthrough (never finished it, but whatever) and got an advertisement I never saw before. It was after a new DLC was released that week. I think it was Return to Ostagar but I may be mistaking - I'm looked through the DLC and picked the earliest one one that I haven't played.

Unless you mean to suggest that BioWare somehow placed the content on the disc and only advertising it after a set amount of time passed. You know what, I'm actually OK with that. It takes real commitment to make a whole DLC, then put it on the disc with the game, and hold out for several months until you actually announce its release and allow people access to it.

The quests I'm specifically speaking of were Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner which were both Day One DLC as far as I'm aware. The Stone Prisoner was free... If you had a new copy of the game. My best guess is that it was part of EA's "don't buy used copies" campaign.

 

[MagmaMan]

My response to anyone asking anything about dlcs being good or bad: I would never wish them to be gone. Why? I shall point to Fallout: New Vegas, and you can figure it out for yourself.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

What, are we going to remove, say, hammers now because they are bad? I mean, you can really hurt somebody with a hammer, even kill them, let's just ban all hammers.

Preposterous, you'd need a ban hammer to even begin trying to ban hammers.

OT: Of course DLC isn't bad, and we're definitely better off with it. The way I see it is that when it's done well it's worth shelling out an extra tenner for more content on a game you like and when it's done badly then you're a fucking moron for buying 4 rehashed maps for ten quid. I mean, they tell you what you're going to get so there's nothing to complain about when you get shitty DLC, it's not going to be a fucking overhaul for the game.

People really need to shut up about DLC, it's beyond a joke how much fucking victim playing is going on when it's entirely your choice to buy the content in the first place.

 

[Olas]

What about DLC that's on the disc, you're just paying for it to be unlocked? You ok with that? you're ok with them finishing the game, putting it on the disc then charging you more on top of what you paid for the game, to play what you already paid for?

As for not needing DLC, Square Enix called, they called you a liar.

Think about it this way: they're giving you, the consumer, more options this way. They could just charge more for the whole game, but instead they're charging you less for a portion of the game and making the rest optional. If you're just a casual player you can just buy and play the core game; if you're a devoted fan you can buy everything and get the whole package.

Better yet, you can specifically choose what extras you want to buy and which you don't for a more customized purchase, whereas without on disk DLC you are essentially being forced to pay for everything, even that which you don't want in the first place.

That doesn't mean the feature doesn't get abused, sure, companies abuse the hell out of it. However, it's not fundamentally bad and can even be of benefit to us gamers if used responsibly.