I've noticed that a lot of games are getting downloadable content and expansion packs these days. Personally, I have to question if it's a good thing or a bad one. For some games I can see the need for downloadable content, because they're designed to have a lot of replay value. Games like Left 4 Dead 1 & 2, Killing Floor, Day of Defeat, Red Orchestra, and other multiplayer online games that aren't story-driven are good games to get additional content through DLC. Rather than reinvent the wheel, new maps, new weapons, new enemies and such can be added simply by building on the gameplay and program that's already there. It saves people from having to buy and install a full-price game for just a few added features and it keeps interest alive in a game that's supposed to have a lot of long-term play value to it.
MMO's are another good example of where DLC can work. While MMO's like Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Anarchy Online, and so on are definitely story-driven. At least they are to those of us who actually pay attention and want to explore; for the speed gaming players who blitz through the action like they want to set a record for getting to end-game pvp, it obviously doesn't matter. But because MMO's are set in persistent worlds, the story needs to continue after the end content is reached by most of its player population. New chapters need to open up, new challenges need to be presented and new lands need to be there for exploration. DLC, in the form of story-advancing patches and maybe downloadable expansion packs, is the best way to do this, again ensuring that people don't have to buy an entirely new game. This is especially important for MMOs because after spending time building up and working on their character, MMO players are going to be reluctant to do it all over again (except for the altaholics, naturally).
However, it's in the MMO field that DLC starts to waiver a bit in its effectiveness at keeping interest in a game going. While it's very effective in getting out new content to players and responding to players' reactions and comments on a game, it does have a drawback. People play MMOs at different speeds; some spend entire days just vegging out on an MMO, while others play it an hour or two a day, then go pursue a different hobby. Because of this, not everybody gets to end-game at the same time in an MMO. But the game publishers and developers are worried about losing subscribers in an MMO, so they feel the need to get new content out as fast as possible once people start getting to the end. This creates a sense of unwanted urgency for people like me who play MMO's for the chance to explore and enjoy the story and in-game content. It's like we have to get through it as fast as possible before we get left behind and don't get to feel like we're a part of the game's story. I'd compare it to being on season 5 of a tv series that into season 6. You're trying to get through the series as fast as possible before somebody inevitably spoils for you what comes next. It's even worse in a game you're trying to be an active participant in, because you can't shake the feeling you're doing something everybody else already has; that really destroys immersion.
DLC and expansion packs for MMO's need to come out at a very careful pace. A game that's designed to have longevity, in my opinion, shouldn't feel like it has to be played at a breakneck pace so the player will feel like they're still "in the loop." Now the story and plot should advance, but people should be given a chance to get to it at a pace other than that of the most fanatical, 24/7-playing addicts. Now could this cost an MMO some customers? Possibly, maybe even probably. But I have to ask the question; what sort of player do the publisher and designers want to cater to; the fanatics with zero patience and unhealthy gaming habits or the moderates who play for fun at a casual pace? Oh, and for those of you about to replay "they want the players who give them money," that may be true, but I'm not convinced the money brought in by moderate players is outweighed by the money from fanatics glued to their computer screens 20 hours a day.
But finally, we get to DLC for standalone, single-player games. This is where I think DLC falls utterly flat. I can see patches for in-game glitches and correcting mistakes discovered later (though play testing should catch them, but nothing's perfect). However, story-wise, these games should be self-contained and have a clear beginning and end. When you start tacking on DLC, it makes it feel like the game was shoved out as fast as possible with an incomplete story.
Now, it may be that DLC is a way for designers to put out content their publishers tried to make them leave out so they could make a deadline, but I think it mars the experience of a game as a whole to try and shoehorn content back in after the finished, polished product has been put out there. It's like trying to hastily nail an ornate part of a chair back onto it after you've already sanded down where it was broken off and polished over the nub.
There's also the impact DLC has to a single-player game's experience for the player. DLC often seems like the gaming equivalent of the horror movie trope of never ending with any closure; there's always got to be some needless cliffhanger ending leaving an opening for a sequel. DLC takes away the feeling of closure and the sense of having finished a game if you know there's been more stuff tacked on at the end; the Red Dead Resurrection and Amnesia: The Dark Descent DLC being prime examples.
Single player games shouldn't need DLC to add to replay value either. A good single-player game should be like a good book or movie. If you like it, you may pick it back up again later to enjoy the sights, sounds and story again. There's nothing to be gained by the publishers by releasing DLC unless its an expansion pack players have to pay for. I guess you could say that releasing DLC could get players who didn't buy the game beforehand to do so, but then you have to ask: if you're only buying the game because of the DLC, doesn't that mean you'll have to play through an entire game you didn't find interesting just to get to it?
So, in conclusion, I think DLC is a useful tool for games that have longevity in mind. Online games and multiplayer games are the best targets for additions and updates to the content, provided its done at an appropriate pace for the players. But single-player games don't need arbitrary extensions tacked on; it just makes what could be a perfectly good game look sloppy by tying on unnecessary features.
MMO's are another good example of where DLC can work. While MMO's like Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Anarchy Online, and so on are definitely story-driven. At least they are to those of us who actually pay attention and want to explore; for the speed gaming players who blitz through the action like they want to set a record for getting to end-game pvp, it obviously doesn't matter. But because MMO's are set in persistent worlds, the story needs to continue after the end content is reached by most of its player population. New chapters need to open up, new challenges need to be presented and new lands need to be there for exploration. DLC, in the form of story-advancing patches and maybe downloadable expansion packs, is the best way to do this, again ensuring that people don't have to buy an entirely new game. This is especially important for MMOs because after spending time building up and working on their character, MMO players are going to be reluctant to do it all over again (except for the altaholics, naturally).
However, it's in the MMO field that DLC starts to waiver a bit in its effectiveness at keeping interest in a game going. While it's very effective in getting out new content to players and responding to players' reactions and comments on a game, it does have a drawback. People play MMOs at different speeds; some spend entire days just vegging out on an MMO, while others play it an hour or two a day, then go pursue a different hobby. Because of this, not everybody gets to end-game at the same time in an MMO. But the game publishers and developers are worried about losing subscribers in an MMO, so they feel the need to get new content out as fast as possible once people start getting to the end. This creates a sense of unwanted urgency for people like me who play MMO's for the chance to explore and enjoy the story and in-game content. It's like we have to get through it as fast as possible before we get left behind and don't get to feel like we're a part of the game's story. I'd compare it to being on season 5 of a tv series that into season 6. You're trying to get through the series as fast as possible before somebody inevitably spoils for you what comes next. It's even worse in a game you're trying to be an active participant in, because you can't shake the feeling you're doing something everybody else already has; that really destroys immersion.
DLC and expansion packs for MMO's need to come out at a very careful pace. A game that's designed to have longevity, in my opinion, shouldn't feel like it has to be played at a breakneck pace so the player will feel like they're still "in the loop." Now the story and plot should advance, but people should be given a chance to get to it at a pace other than that of the most fanatical, 24/7-playing addicts. Now could this cost an MMO some customers? Possibly, maybe even probably. But I have to ask the question; what sort of player do the publisher and designers want to cater to; the fanatics with zero patience and unhealthy gaming habits or the moderates who play for fun at a casual pace? Oh, and for those of you about to replay "they want the players who give them money," that may be true, but I'm not convinced the money brought in by moderate players is outweighed by the money from fanatics glued to their computer screens 20 hours a day.
But finally, we get to DLC for standalone, single-player games. This is where I think DLC falls utterly flat. I can see patches for in-game glitches and correcting mistakes discovered later (though play testing should catch them, but nothing's perfect). However, story-wise, these games should be self-contained and have a clear beginning and end. When you start tacking on DLC, it makes it feel like the game was shoved out as fast as possible with an incomplete story.
Now, it may be that DLC is a way for designers to put out content their publishers tried to make them leave out so they could make a deadline, but I think it mars the experience of a game as a whole to try and shoehorn content back in after the finished, polished product has been put out there. It's like trying to hastily nail an ornate part of a chair back onto it after you've already sanded down where it was broken off and polished over the nub.
There's also the impact DLC has to a single-player game's experience for the player. DLC often seems like the gaming equivalent of the horror movie trope of never ending with any closure; there's always got to be some needless cliffhanger ending leaving an opening for a sequel. DLC takes away the feeling of closure and the sense of having finished a game if you know there's been more stuff tacked on at the end; the Red Dead Resurrection and Amnesia: The Dark Descent DLC being prime examples.
Single player games shouldn't need DLC to add to replay value either. A good single-player game should be like a good book or movie. If you like it, you may pick it back up again later to enjoy the sights, sounds and story again. There's nothing to be gained by the publishers by releasing DLC unless its an expansion pack players have to pay for. I guess you could say that releasing DLC could get players who didn't buy the game beforehand to do so, but then you have to ask: if you're only buying the game because of the DLC, doesn't that mean you'll have to play through an entire game you didn't find interesting just to get to it?
So, in conclusion, I think DLC is a useful tool for games that have longevity in mind. Online games and multiplayer games are the best targets for additions and updates to the content, provided its done at an appropriate pace for the players. But single-player games don't need arbitrary extensions tacked on; it just makes what could be a perfectly good game look sloppy by tying on unnecessary features.
