Downloadable content, anyone else besides me think its ridiculous and evil?

[lifesucksadapt]

Alright let me start off by saying that you shouldnt take this the wrong way,I love the idea of being able to download extras for a game especially if its something that didnt fit into the game. I hate it when greedy companies decide to take out the good stuff in a game and make you buy it individually after you bought the game. Seriously its ridiculous, I already spent 60$ on the game and now your gonna nickel and dime me for the good stuff?!?! It gets better (sarcastic tone), I am the idiot owner of an X-box 360 when im somebody who would definently be more interested in a Ps3, im not saying the Ps3 is better im just saying I would like it more than the X-box. My point is the X-box live is a lovely feature that lets me pay even more money for the good stuff, also I have to pay to be on the gold subscription which is the subscription that gets all the good stuff (I see a pattern there).The Ps3 people however dont have to pay just to be on the live feature. Anyway heres my question already so I can force myself to stop rambling ; do you think DLC is a good feature that was abused by greedy people? feel free to explain your answer or say anything else thats relivant to the question.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

Only if the DLC comes from Activision, otherwise i just find it annoying.

 

[The_Healer]

Woah please use the "Enter" key.

Yes DLC is a way to exploit the customer into paying more, but it's a very smart business move and you can't really blame them for it.
I generally just ignore it because obviously I can't get it cheap on ebay like I do most of my games.

 

[Marter]

I don't like DLC, but mostly because I like having physical copies of things. It can be good when done right, but in the most cases, it ends up being a cash grab.

 

[Neikun]

DLC works well in adding things into the game. However if the game feels like it's missing something without the DLC, some greedy swine are at work. But I'm conflicted. In Little Big Planet, they did the same thing, sort of. You pay for packs with new stuff. Some of it's just costumes, materials and sounds/music, but other things like the PAINTinator and the water features feel like you're missing a big part of the game without them. That said, it's not really Media Molecule's fault. These ideas genuinely came after the release of the game.

 

[Neikun]

True. I love a physical copy and have to agree 100% with that opinion.

 

[SimuLord]

Ever heard of the concept in psychology of the minimum perception threshold? Y'know, how strong a stimulus has to be before you notice it's there?

I have the same perception threshold about money. Anything less than ten bucks is like "it may as well be free". This is why I eat too much fast food and why any Steam sale that drops the price of something interesting below ten bucks means a more or less guaranteed buy.

DLC averages between two and five bucks (ten for the really big shit like Fallout 3 DLC, but I've bought unit packs for Empire and Napoleon just because "it's only a couple of bucks".)

 

[Enigma6667]

I have to agree, at first, it seemed like a good way to make sure a gaming experience can go long as long as the developers want it to. But then, they realized it can be used as a money-grubbing scheme so that they don't add stuff into the main game, and make you pay for stuff that should've been in it.

The only times I ever really liked DLC was with Fallout 3 and Borderlands, and even with those, sometimes I think that it's just yet another money-grabbing scheme. Alan Wake's DLC might be good, but again, since it's been announced since Day 1, it seems like they're taking away episodes from the game just to make you pay more.

 

[park92]

and Ps3 owners also can use gameshare XD

 

[Avatar Roku]

I agree that it can be bad sometimes, but just look at Bethesda (Horse Armor aside) for an example of good DLC that validates the concept. Seriously: Shivering Isles, Knights of the Nine, Broken Steel, the Pitt, Point Lookout, etc.

 

[arcticphoenix95]

it works when it's free. that's all i have to say

 

[Superior Mind]

I like DLC, I don't like the amount of manipulation that flanks it most of the time. Okay, so a company may decide to cut a bit out of a finished game so they can add it as DLC later and charge for it. These things happen. DLC can also be lazy, realising that with a good game they've alrady tied in an audience who'll buy any shit they produce. So shit is what they produce with the only real thought behind it being "before they unwrap the tinfoil and find that they've bought a lump of poo instead of a baked potato with sour cream and bacon bits they'll already have given us the money so who cares?"

The most annoying thing I find is actually how they get you to pay for DLC. Points. Why the fuck should I have to trade my currency for utterly worthless points? What's wrong with money? I'll tell you what the problem with money is, I don't have to spend it all at one place. Once I've traded my money for your points though I'm stuck. There's the completely bollocksy amount you can buy, 400, 800 etc. wheras DLC is at prices like 520 points. Fan-fucking-tastic, so you get me to buy more points than I need to buy something I want so you've hooked me in to buying something I don't want or wait around until you sell something else I dowant at which point I wont have enough points so will have to buy MORE points which will AGAIN lead me to buy more points than I want or need so you can continue to hook me in. Well fuck you you fucking fuckers.

 

[Drakstern]

DLC should be treated like any expansion or game.

If it's an addition to an already complete game, that's fine.

If it's something taken out of the game solely so you can sell it later, then it's shit.

I honestly like the concept of DLC in general. I think that if a game is popular, then it's an excellent way to get us additional game. The problem comes when it's something that should have been in the original game that's taken out. Any sort of day 1 DLC is an instant NO, for example.

 

[octafish]

I really like the free DLC that you get when you buy a legitimate copy of a game, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age are the prime examples of this. This is the BEST form of DRM. Bioware encourages loyalty by not treating you like a criminal or breaking the game. I enjoyed Dragon Age and on the second playthrough I downloaded some DLC to expand my experience. I thought it was worth the money. ME2, had some good stuff that wasn't needed or missing in the main story. Plus I could download it on any computer, not just in game which meant I was able to use my work download limits and not my own download allowance. Fallout 3 was a bit hit and miss, The Pitt was worth the money if a bit buggy, and Broken Steel was a good answer to people's complaints about the level cap and the original ending, the rest were pretty blah.

In conclusion I don't mind DLC, but from now on I'll be looking for a review of the content before I download.

edit: OH I forgot, Point Lookout was good for Fallout 3, but I learnt that by reading reviews before downloading.

 

[BRMXJzjsoawk321]

Valve's free DLC is evil now? Damn..

 

[DividedUnity]

The only DLC i think is wrong is map packs. Not free ones but the ones you have to pay for. They seperate the player base and that is a crime

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

Idk, DLC just seems like a smaller version of expansion packs, and we used to pay top-dollar for them. Seems like this is just console fans getting a taste of what PC users have been dealing with for years.

EDIT: Tiny little DLC like maps/costumes aren't worth paying for, so that's a strike against, I guess. Valve has the right idea, with free updates, but I feel like The Passing and Crash Course were legitimate additions that they could've easily charged for.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I hate it when greedy companies decide to take out the good stuff in a game and make you buy it individually after you bought the game.

How about you spend tons of man hours and money and effort make something and give it away to somebody who bought something from you before? Not the best way to keep people in a job.

I am the idiot owner of an X-box 360 when im somebody who would definently be more interested in a Ps3, im not saying the Ps3 is better im just saying I would like it more than the X-box.

That's an easily solved problem, not even going to state the obvious.

My point is the X-box live is a lovely feature that lets me pay even more money for the good stuff, also I have to pay to be on the gold subscription which is the subscription that gets all the good stuff (I see a pattern there).The Ps3 people however dont have to pay just to be on the live feature.

PSN is different than Xbox Live, and many people will tell you that XBL tends to be more stable, and lag free, and they have open servers for games. Besides, nobody is forcing you to purchase XBL.

do you think DLC is a good feature that was abused by greedy people? feel free to explain your answer or say anything else thats relivant to the question.

I think it's a fantastic feature in many ways, when implemented properly. It allows the company to expand and build upon, and even rectify things that used to only be fixable on PC versions with hotfixes and patches. Some companies I think are abusing the system, but that is their problem, not mine. But I'm all for it. Even if they are nickel and dimeing us, they're not going to sit on the money, they're going to pay people to make newer and better games.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

I think DLC is fine when it's not a blatant cash-in (Stimulus Package <.<)

And it has to really add something to the game.