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

[Roxor]

Not really, but the completionist in me finds it annoying when I find out I don't have it all and will need to spend more money if I want to actually finish the game.

I would like to see every game with DLC have an option where you could buy a complete version which will have all the DLC that will ever be released for the game. Pay once, be guaranteed to get all the content as it comes out. Obviously it would be more expensive than just buying the game alone, but it would be some nice convenience.

 

[spartandude]

It really does depend on the game. For example i like Halo 4, have not brought any dlc for it, unlike halo 3 where i brought all when it came out.

But as you said in the OP, Civ V is a dramatic improvement with the expansions and i really struggled to play it without the DLC. Heck i brought 2 of my friends Brave New World so i could enjoy our multiplayer sessions.

 

[The Lunatic]

Depends on the DLC, but, usually I don't buy games which are going to have excessive DLC programs.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Hmm this is most definately an issue that if i like a game enough (such as arkhum city), my little OCD demon that wants the complete experience will keep tapping away at my brain until i get it all...even if i never use it, which more often than not, i wont.
The worst examples for compulsive buying are games such as mortal kombat and NFS most wanted 2012, where the game content is really just players and maps. Christ, NFS took the royal piss when they coded the DLC cars into the main game so as soon as you tried getting in one, it slapped you round the face and tells you "NO little Timmy, you must learn to tip EA before you can use their shiny toys!!"
Am pretty sure i spent the same dolla on all that DLC that i spent on the full game, for much less than half the content of it. Including the shitty (also pre-coded into the game) airport area which was just a circular road! Fuck you EA! And fuck you, drunken me, that gave money to EA!
It'd dirty psychological trickery i tell you!
Apart from Blood Dragon, which is a special case

 

[krazykidd]

No , because i never buy dlc anyways. Iv'e gotten lucky, iv'e never bought a game that seemed like it required the DLC to enjoy, but i usually look these things up beforehand. If anygame make it seem like they took something out to sell for DLC, i just don't buy it. Then i cut the series out of my to play list.

 

[snappydog]

I've only played vanilla Skyrim so far and I've sunk an awful lot of time into it, so I'd say my enjoyment hasn't been hampered on that one. I can't speak for Mass Effect etc., as it sounds like the DLC actually does change the experience there, but I never played the third one.
Civ 5, however, I can say I enjoy much more with all expansions and a few mods. And some of the recent WWE games (2k14 is my main example here) released a few more wrestlers as DLC so I've got those, as the roster seems a little empty without some of them.

 

[Archangel_Slade]

This is subjective as it depends on both game and person. I like having all DLC being a bit of a perfectionist and depending on game I can feel like something is missing. Story DLC is something I always want but map packs or skins don't bother me (except I really loved having a batman beyond skin in Arkham City). Saying that seeing Deathstroke as a playable character made me want Arkham Origins more than anything.

 

[Raziel]

Not for me. I almost never buy any dlc. And of the ones I have gotten they are almost never worth it.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

It depends on the game I suppose, but then I wouldn't really know. I don't buy DLCs anymore.
I've bought exactly 2 DLCs and it actually hampered my game enjoyment because I wasted money on a filthy cash grab.

I am not talking about proper expansion packs like those for Civ5 here, especially not standalone ones. I'm talking DLC that add fuck all to the game and cost like 1/4 of it, or those that add things that were supposed to be in the game from the start but got chopped away so they could leech some extra profits.

It's a shitty practice and I want no part of it.

 

[Drummodino]

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.

Yea this is basically how I feel too. I really dislike missing out on story information or characters, Bioware are among the worst offenders for this. I played through Mass Effect 2 twice without any of the DLC (Cerberus Network never worked for me) and I've only just played through it again with all the story DLC... I missed so much content because of this. Makes me glad I'm playing 3 for the first time now, I can play with all the essential story DLC included.

Assassin's Creed games are pretty terrible about this as well. I had a serious issue with the plot of Brotherhood and I only found out this year that my questions were answered in one of the DLC's that I didn't even know existed. Things like that infuriate me, I have a compulsion to know everything! Please, developers and publishers, make your games complete and keep DLC self-contained.

 

[Lieju]

Yes. I blame my OCD.

Even if the content is something I don't even want (like multiplayer), not having it is going to hamper my enjoyement.

 

[Kotaro]

When it actually adds new content, be it expansion pack or DLC, I generally don't like to play without it.
Unless it's a multiplayer map pack or something, because I rarely play competitive multiplayer games.

I really do miss the days when the game you bought was complete and any additional release was a full expansion pack...

 

[Bellvedere]

No. If the stand alone game looks good then I'm happy to play the stand alone game. If I want more of the game or DLC comes along that looks really good, then I'll buy DLC. Most of the time I've already moved on from the game when DLC starts rolling in, so I often don't even know what I'm missing when it comes to DLC.

I actually find story DLC the least tempting/frustrating because if I want to know what it added to the story but don't feel like paying and/or playing it, it's easy enough to just look it up.

 

[Artina89]

I don't download DLC out of principle, but yes there are many occasions I get annoyed because I have paid for the game and I feel like I shouldn't have to pay for extra levels that weren't in the original. I miss the times when I could fork out £40 for a game and know I am getting the complete product.

 

[Mikejames]

Depends on the content I guess. Some are solid add-ons to the story, others aren't worth the time.

Only if it gets rubbed into my face:
Either by the game itself (e.g. Dragon Age camp site "quest giver")

I love me some Dragon Age, but having the personification of a DLC ad literally traveling in your entourage was pretty blunt.

 

[Coakle]

That's tough. It really depends on how invested I get. I played the Mass Effect trilogy and Dragon Age without any DLC, I liked the game, but I wasn't invested enough to buy anything else. Binding of Isaac and Civ 5 are the only games that I wanted to buy all the DLC for.

 

[aozgolo]

Wow lots of responses, thanks guys!

I am one of many victims suffering from Steam Disease, the horrible affliction that causes your game library to swell 4 times the size of what you will ever actually have time to play due to all those bundles and sales they have...

I'm getting better... slowly...

I just noticed though that often when I go to consider a new game to play I will check the DLC for it first to see if I have ALL of it. I'm not overly concerned with extra "maps" or "costumes" or fluff items but if there's any story value at all to the DLC, yeah I'll want it!

Fallout New Vegas' DLC may at first glance be self-contained stories/areas but they also expand the main game's narrative AND add 20 extra levels to gain (5 per DLC), which does affect your native enjoyment of the game.

Skyrim perhaps a bit less so, I also hopped on Skyrim like a fat kid on cake when it came out but the additions of the DLC don't really cross over into the vanilla experience unless you let them (Alduin getting a crossbow to the face while Durnheviir torches his butt is a notable example for me )

Civ V I got the Gods and Kings expansion but after reading what Brave New World added? No way I could play it now without the constant realization that I'm 30$ shy of a much more amazing and robust game.

I bought the Mass Effect Trilogy for PS3 and while it includes some DLC, it doesn't have all of it, which means I am taking my sweet time through playing ME1 since I know I won't want to jump into the second or third one without the full package.


Granted then there's games like Agarest: Generations of War which when I first saw it on Steam nearly had me rage out over the $97.71 pricetag of all it's DLC... until I realized every big of it is simply extra cheater-y items to make the game easier and add no true extra worthwhile content to the game... well that's the kind of DLC I can avoid without feeling like I've robbed myself an experience.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Depends if the DLC is characters or content cut out of the game then yes..it kinda ruins the experience for me.

I don't usually buy DLC and the only exception that I did caved in and bought it was Mass Effect 3 (I bought all DLC's) because I wanted to have the "complete experience".

I personally find the practice disgusting.