Erradicate DLC ?

[Orcus The Ultimate]

i've read some comments in Gametrailers recently, and found an argument curious and worthwhile, the way i see it:




So... that being said, here goes my questions:

Should we boycott companies that allow DLC ?

Can the world be like the 80's & 90's [but] without that invention again ?

(the second question was misunderstood by most of you, it was more like a world of early gaming without this concept)

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

Should you boycott nearly every single company out there?

Go for it, you won't get very far though. Not that internet boycotts ever do.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Should you boycott nearly every single company out there?

Go for it, you won't get very far though. Not that internet boycotts ever do.

well, when they start realizing they're getting a bad reputation, i assume they'll change their approach on it.

 

[EzraPound]

I've never bought DLC for a game for this reason. It was funny--I was eyeing the DLC for Red Dead Redemption. Then I realized that it added a cumulative 20 missions to RDR's (brief) 56 or so, whereas GTA III had 76 missions. At which point, I decided not to buy it.

 

[Antari]

No the world can be ALOT better than the 80's and 90's if they'd put the effort into it. Companies that release DLC land themselves on my automatic NO BUY list. Ya I'm pretty damn bored these days. But I'm not wasting my money on crap.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

No the world can be ALOT better than the 80's and 90's if they'd put the effort into it. Companies that release DLC land themselves on my automatic NO BUY list. Ya I'm pretty damn bored these days. But I'm not wasting my money on crap.

Well here's someone that knows what it wants! and understand what i'm talking about!

 

[nuba km]

if the DLC looks good I get it two examples of great DLC are red dead redemptions undead nightmare and borderland's secret armoury of knoxx.

 

[Katana314]

When it's something extra that has only mild value, I'd say it's fine. When the core game, without DLC, is solidly NOT worth its $60, I'd say it's not fine. Let's not forget DLC is just a method of distribution, whereas expansion packs have always existed.

 

[Radeonx]

Clearly adding content to games for a cost is a terrible idea...I mean, how dare those developers ask for money in return for them doing their jobs?
I mean, the nerve of some people.....

 

[baddude1337]

The idea of DLC is good (more content to keep you entertained and playing your favorite games) but companies are just abusing it with things such as day 1 DLC, DLC that continues the single player story, and over price multiplayer packs. The cost versus content is also an issue.

 

[linwolf]

If the core game seems worth it I buy it, but more often than not games with DLC aren't. Theoretic I feel the same way about DLC but I haven't found one worth buying yet.

 

[ParadiseOnceLost]

Depends on the game and DLC. I will never buy a map pack for a shooter that is over $7, but later this month I will prolly plunk down $40 to get all the Mass Effect 2 DLC. If the game is good and shipped completely whole (what they are selling as DLC is not an integral part of the game). I have no problem buying the game and paying a little extra for DLC.

 

[ihazawii]

What you guys fail to realize is things have not changed much at all. Even back in the "day" there were short games. Instead of DLC we had shitty expansions that added little content for much more than the average DLC cost. Remember when console games would never get patched? those were the days. Find a bug? its there for ever. Now with DLC and developer support the games get more content and bug fixes. But i remember the good amount of expansions too, but i can think of a few DLC's that were amazing as well.

One also has to remember that the content of a game gets locked months before a game is released. The developers could sit on their ass and do nothing, or they could world on an expansion pack, which have died out over the years, or work on DLC. All in all DLC as a concept isn't bad, but some developers produce shit DLC, which was no different in the expansion pack era.

 

[Jaeger_CDN]

I understand the need by developers to maintain a continuing revenue stream for their games but I disagree with the DLC that is shipped with a product on release.

I generally don't buy DLC unless it's a decent expansion to the game itself (no horse armour for me, that's what modders are for) or I wait until they release a GoTY version which contains all the expansions and most DLC.

Apparently the Bethesda boss was qouted in an article here that there are still people buying horse armour for Oblivion, even 5 years after it was released.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The Mass Effect situation pisses me off. DLC is fine. But when you release DLC that significantly affects the plot of a trilogy then I call foul. I paid 64$ for ME2, and I damn well expect a self-contained story. If you have to have DLC that bridges 2 to 3 then you failed as writers. How about spending more time developing a game? Oh no, we have nonsensical deadlines to meet.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Should we boycott companies that allow DLC ?
Can the world be like the 80's & 90's without that invention again ?

No. No we should not. "big-bluu" is an idiot.

Games cost way more to make lately, and come with many more standard features than they used to. There's also that whole inflation thing. Even with DLC (which I can choose to buy if I want, or to not buy if I don't want) I have no problems with the price of games.

 

[Jfswift]

There are two kinds of DLC. DLC that comes at prerelease time (like downloadable weapons in Dead Space 2) and DLC that comes afterward, such as the Dead Money expansion for Fallout: New Vegas. I think the first type, DLC at time of release is insulting. There's no reason I shouldn't get the full game when I pay full price.

Case 1: That really burns me up if I buy a game new a day after release and now i'm cut off from some cool weapons or gear that's already programmed into the damn game. It's just dishonest and yes we should boycott these games. (there's no incentive to pay full price if i'm going to get ripped off. I really hope the right people read this too.)

Case 2: Conversely if a game has been out a while (like Fallout: NV) and the developers take their time and program new content like the Dead Money DLC, then I think we should support them and pay a few bucks for their hard work.

 

[PlasmaFrog]

It's perfectly fine to release thing such as additional missions and whatnot, but when it comes down to menial things such as characters and weapons, or even maps, that's when I turn my head from it.

 

[Plurralbles]

... I think hte definition of what a full, released game is has fundamentally changed and if the quoted guy doesn't like it well... I agree... but it's not going ot change anything because there will never be a population of people who pay enough and influence enough compared to all the people who are buying hte DLC.