Does not having all DLC for a game hamper your enjoyment?

[aozgolo]

No I'm not talking about different colored hats or money paks, I mean the real meat-and-potatoes adds new content type of DLC.

I've always been a big fan of complete experiences and lately I've realized there are some games I just refuse to play yet for no better reason than because there is DLC for it I don't own yet. This seems a little absurd I am sure, but I have Civilization V and Kingdoms of Amalur and while I've played both for a couple of hours, enough to ensure I would enjoy it, I refuse to even load them up because I don't have all the DLC content for them yet.

I can't say it's not totally justified in my case, I waited about 6 months to play Fallout New Vegas after I bought it because I hadn't gotten the DLCs yet and now I can't imagine that game without them, even if they just add separate stories that you don't have to touch.

I was just curious... is this a common problem other gamers go through at all? Do you ever feel like you aren't getting a full experience of a game when you don't have all the extra bits?

 

[Altorin]

definitely. I rarely play it, but not having it feels wrong. DLC's insidiousness falls right into my neurosis and hatefucks it.

 

[Black Haze]

As a Civ5 player I can agree that playing the game without any DLC is kind of a hollow experience compared to with DLC, mainly the Brave New World expansion. The difference in game play is night and day. Some games Im okay with not getting the DLC immediately because either their a decent enough on their own (Dishonored, Mass Effect) or I can supplement them with mods to bide my time until I do feel the need for DLC (Skyrim, Fallout: NV). Generally if I can afford it I go for DLC, or I try to supplement it with mods if the game allows.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

It all depends on the game honestly...I must have got over a hundred hours out of vanilla Skyrim for example even though I've downloaded DLC for other Bethesda RPGs. Then there's Mass Effect DLC which sometimes annoys me since it feels like I have to download some of these if not all of them if I want the whole story, all of the characters, etc...It doesn't so much hamper my enjoyment as it annoys me somewhat.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I suppose it does, but I don't often find myself in the position where it really ends up mattering a lot.

I tend to buy games I'm interested in as soon as they are available so there generally isn't any DLC at that point other than what comes with the initial purchase. In those cases, I'm pretty much done with the game before extra DLC is available and almost never feel any temptation to play it again later just to experience a certain piece of DLC. In the case of games that I don't buy right at release but do buy later, I'll often just pick up the expected all-inclusive version.

That said, there have been times where I have purchased a game post-release but without any DLC included. In those cases, I do feel like I'm missing something but I don't recall it ever being enough to stop me from playing the game.

 

[Zhukov]

Nope.

I've never played a game that felt incomplete without the DLC.

It's half the reason the various complaints regarding DLC seem so silly to me.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

It depends on the game, really.

I enthusiastically bought all of the DLC for Fallout: New Vegas because I had a blast playing that game and just couldn't get enough of it.

Dead Space 3 on the other hand, no thanks. I liked the game just fine... but not enough to dish out more money for a tiny bit of content.

The only game I can think of right now that it bugs me not having the DLC is Mass Effect 3. I actually would really like to play it... but I lost the hard drive that my save files were on. Still haven't gotten around to re-downloading Origin (I'm in no hurry...), so I don't know if maybe my save file is stored on their end. I thought about starting a brand new playthrough a few months back from the very beginning, but quickly lost motivation. Though I love the original Mass Effect, it really hasn't aged well.

 

[JET1971]

Depend on the DLC and the game. If the DLC is something like Horse Armor then I could live without it. But if the DLC is actually needed to get the complete story for the game then it is a must have ontop of being a dick move by the publisher. As for DLC like map packs for FPS games I refuse to buy them because I know just how much real work goes into making a map. Pisses me off that games give you 5 maps then charge $19.99 for 3 more maps or whatever the going rate is these days. They can take those 3 maps and shove them where the sun don't shine so I can say them offering crap like that kills my enjoyment of the game. Then if the DLC is like Skyrims and are what used to be called expansion packs then I am all for buying them if I enjoyed the base game but still I do not lose any enjoyment from not having them as far as the base game is concerned.

 

[Joey Banana]

No. For me, DLC is always an afterthought and in most cases bought after completing the game. It's pretty much the other way around, really. If a game is great and lots of fun, i'll consider buying DLC. It also should not be required to enjoy a game properly unless it's free.

However, there are exceptions. Like the aforementioned Mass Effect. In Mass Effect 2, not having the Liara expansion severly hampers your enjoyment when romancing her.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Only if it's something that's clearly been cut from the original game making it feel incomplete. The prothean DLC for mass effect is a prime example. It has nothing to do with the size of the DLC though, more the nature of its content. I don't feel like my skyrim is incomplete even though I dont have dragonborn. I know I can buy it when I'm ready to play those quests and it wont ruin the rest of my experience.

 

[AliasBot]

Other way around for me: the only time DLC has hampered my enjoyment of gaming was when people online didn't have it: namely in Halo 4, where every player in a game has to have a DLC pack for DLC maps to be an option to play on, which effectively means that, aside from right after the DLC comes out and there's a playlist exclusively for it, you can't play on DLC maps in online games...which sucks because they're actually some of the better Halo 4 maps (given more experience from the developers and all), and because the less I get to play the maps, the more I remember I paid something like 30 bucks collectively to get them in the first place.

...aside from that, it's only been noticeable when the game was actually lacking in some way without the DLC (limited map selection in Halo 3, for instance). I'm not a rabid completionist, but I do like to have a bit of variety in my gameplay.

 

[Legion]

Only if it ties into the main story of the game and not owning it feels like I am missing out on important plot points. Bioware are terrible for this as most of theirs are directly linked. The amount of story content missing if you do not own the Mass Effect 2 and 3 DLC's is appalling.

Bring Down the Sky and Citadel are the kinds of DLC I think are fine, as they are not required to have a full understanding of the main games story. They feel entirely optional. In the literal sense all DLC is, but some of it doesn't feel designed to be.

With games such as Fallout and Skyrim it isn't an issue as they are self contained. They are more like a spin off as they share the core game-play but if you don't own them you are not left with questions regarding the main game.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Not at all. I feel like the DLC often gets more attention than the content in the game, often. Admittedly I'm thinking of something like Sleeping Dogs - in which the DLC is kinda perfunctory, but might be good for a little postgame runaround - and this doesn't apply to something like Civ V (or indeed IV) in which the expansions are intended to replace the main game rather than augment it.

I much prefer DLC and expansions to add side content (like VR missions in MGR Revengeance, Bethesda Fallout expansions or Dunwall City Trials from Dishonored) or post-game content (Broken Steel, Knife of Dunwall/Brigmore Witches) as opposed to stuff that augments the main game in such a way, but I think with something like Civ it's kinda unavoidable. Though as much as I like Civ V (more than many people who enjoy Civ), I can agree with them that the main game without Gods and Kings or Brave New World is barebones. And releasing Civs as DLC can balls right off, even if it's actually good content.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Can do. Most games I feel do DLC badly and use it just to squeeze as much money from the customer as possible under the guise of additional (rather than cut) content.

I rarely buy DLC usually I am done with the game before they make it available or I just buy the game really late and get the game of the year addition.

 

[Casual Shinji]

No.

In fact there's some DLC I wish I never even touched (The Last of Us: Left Behind, Resident Evil 4: Seperate Ways).

And most DLC is intergrated badly anyway (see above). The only DLC I played that felt like it really added content was Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Brooker. But that's probably because Mass Effect has a mission based story structure, meaning you can more easily add chunks of gameplay without upsetting the balance.

 

[Imre Csete]

Depends on the game. If it is a follow up, post-ending for a story based game, I can live with that.

For example, I've put Mass Effect 2 playthroughs on halt when I knew they will add Kasumi and Overlord eventually, but Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival didn't bother me.

 

[josemlopes]

No, for example, I actually played a lot of the multiplayer of Max Payne 3 but I never bought the DLCs other then that one that brought the survival mode (I really wish they added more maps to that mode though).

 

[Rastrelly]

No I'm not talking about different colored hats or money paks, I mean the real meat-and-potatoes adds new content type of DLC.

I've always been a big fan of complete experiences and lately I've realized there are some games I just refuse to play yet for no better reason than because there is DLC for it I don't own yet. This seems a little absurd I am sure, but I have Civilization V and Kingdoms of Amalur and while I've played both for a couple of hours, enough to ensure I would enjoy it, I refuse to even load them up because I don't have all the DLC content for them yet.

I can't say it's not totally justified in my case, I waited about 6 months to play Fallout New Vegas after I bought it because I hadn't gotten the DLCs yet and now I can't imagine that game without them, even if they just add separate stories that you don't have to touch.

I was just curious... is this a common problem other gamers go through at all? Do you ever feel like you aren't getting a full experience of a game when you don't have all the extra bits?

Well, in case of Civ V it is right. There is no reason to play Civ V without both major DLCs. Additional civ and mapapck DLCs are much less valuable, while still fun (especially concerning odd Civ V multiplayer limitations). When talking of other DLCs it actually matters if they are integrated into the game itself, or work separately (say, new quests to an existing city, or adventures after final boss). If they are integrated, usually it's better to have them all, otherwise they usually do more harm.

 

[MrDumpkins]

If there is no DLC out for the game I will play it, if there is DLC for it and I haven't gotten it yet I usually wait for a complete edition with all the fluff. I wouldn't just buy the game knowing that I'm another 10+ dollars from all the content, I'd wait for a complete edition. An example being Dark Souls 2. I bought the full game while I'm sure there will be DLC later on. However I would not have bought dark souls 2 had it had a DLC with it, I'd just wait for another prepare to die edition later down the road to save money.

 

[rofltehcat]

Only if it gets rubbed into my face:
Either by the game itself (e.g. Dragon Age camp site "quest giver")
Or in competitive games (e.g. Company of Heroes commanders, giving the enemy access to potentially unbalanced, though mostly ok-ish balanced, stuff that you don't know much about)
Or by other players (omg this DLC is so much better you should play it instead of the old base game; pretty much any hype in communities for the game about a DLC)