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

[Asita]

Depends on how it's implemented. Borderlands 2, for instance, had additional campaigns and characters, which exist independently of the main campaign (largely due to the fact that your interaction with other characters is consistent regardless of who you play as). Assassin's Creed 2, by contrast, was very obnoxious about it. It literally includes a point in the main story where it points out that there's missing content, pulling you into the animus loading room just to tell you that 'this memory is locked for some reason' and that you have to skip it. I don't mind the Borderlands example, but the Assassin's Creed 2 one really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[lacktheknack]

No.

Usually, DLC annoys me when it's present, because it's so obviously a tack-on. I don't understand why people want it to be rolled back into the main game where I can't ignore it. ;____;

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I play the game and have fun, whatever DLC that exists or may exist in the future doesnt come into it. Only games with good DLC are Mass Effect and Bethesda rpgs. Then i get those when they release a GotY edition.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Somewhat. I almost never buy DLC, but I'm annoyed when there's DLC I won't be having that is good and an extension of the central experience, like Shadow Broker for ME2, Advanced Edition for FTL (which was thankfully free) and Abyss for Dark Souls (which I did buy eventually). But my aversion to paying money has allowed me not to get too annoyed when it's some bullshit like Assassin's Creed DLC invariably is, being a tangential and completely insular side-mission or cosmetic items. Even so, the preying on people who can't feel comfortable with the base game is one of the main reasons I hate most DLC, especially at launch and especially pertaining to preorders and editions.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Again, depends on the game.

With BioWare stuff I generally do get everything, because I am a sucker genuinely enjoy having the full experience; every character, mission, item. I replay those games quite often (relatively speaking), so I definitely get my money's worth (or at least I certainly feel I do). Ditto with Skyrim; I think Bethesda did a great job with their updates and tweaks, which in some cases added small but welcome features. They earnt my trust, and my pounds'n'pence.

Others I pick and choose. I love character customisation options, but some games take the piss completely with too many pricey packs (e.g. SFIV's iterations, and even UMvC3). Saints Row IV started to be a bit cheeky, too, although I got the main expansions.

Forza Motorsport 3's odious approach to VIP packs and DLC actually made me abandon the entire IP.

 

[MrCaptainA]

This is a pretty good topic actually. I agree that playable content DLC is a thorn in the side of many a gamer. Not having each of the DLC packs does create a less than desirable experience, and also serves to fragment the communities for said games, especially if the title is primarily multiplayer. It's effectively locking content behind a paywall (PARTICULARLY on disc DLC), and as Henry Rollins/William Shatner proclaim "I can't get behind that".

It's one thing to have a nice healthy looking expansion pack, it's another to break up what could otherwise BE a full expansion and sell it to players piecemeal. Personally my pockets aren't particularly deep, so I find myself having to cherry pick DLC which usually weighs in at what would have previously been full on expansion price and even then I'm still going to be missing out on a significant portion of content.

EA titles seem to be habitual offenders in this case, but they are by no means the only ones to do so.

In summary, yes - playing without all of the available DLC provides an incomplete experience, but sometimes it's ok (not ideal, but still OK) to just cherry pick the best of the best and make do with that, although sometimes waiting to see what is good and what isn't is enough to put you behind the curve for new content.