Erradicate DLC ?

[DaJoW]

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.

This is what really pisses me off. I don't buy DLC and have never had any intention to, but now they're pretty much forcing you to in order to get the proper bridge between 2 and 3. If it had been an expansion like Awakening, fine. But $7 for one mission? Without which you miss an important part of the story between 2 and 3? Not even close to alright.

 

[JochemDude]

It has good sides and bad sides, that's all I'm putting in the meat grinder here

 

[Radeonx]

Day 0/Day 1 DLC should be a crime, and there's absolutely no excuse for it. Don't tell me "oh, two groups worked on them," cause that means the two groups were either working together (meaning it would've been pooled if they'd been given the okay to do so), or they were working seperately, meaning the content and the game itself may not even go together well or feel like it fits at all.

A lot of day one DLC is made after the game has been finished developed. Games aren't on the shelves 30 seconds after the development process is finished, you know.

 

[Elamdri]

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.

Kinda like how Starcraft: Brood War significantly expanded on the plot of Starcraft, yet wasn't included in the original Starcraft game?

I seriously don't get this. If you include everything in a giant package, charge gamers the same price they paid for the game minus 10 bucks and call it an expansion pack, no one whines. But if you chop that content up into little chunks and sell it for 10 bucks, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world.

 

[endplanets]

Depends on the game really. Fallout 3, Borderlands, Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto 4 and Mass Effect 2 were good examples lots of DLC that complemented the story while the original game is still a complete product so I bought it. Dragon Age, Fable 3 and Halo: Reach were deliberately neutered so they sell us stuff that should have been in the game originally so I didn't buy it.
Over time companies will realize that good DLC is the way to go and only make good DLC. Hopefully.

 

[Canid117]

Depends on the DLC really. If it was done before the game was out and there is no reason it should have been left out of the original game (Like the Bonfire of the Vanities DLC from ACII where the game pretty much said "we have this done already but we left it out and are flat out telling you that you don't get another four hours of the game that you payed for until you PAY US MOAR MONEH") then it is utter bullshit. If, on the other hand, it is something like most of the Mass Effect II DLC then it is great.

 

[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.

Kinda like how Starcraft: Brood War significantly expanded on the plot of Starcraft, yet wasn't included in the original Starcraft game?

I seriously don't get this. If you include everything in a giant package, charge gamers the same price they paid for the game minus 10 bucks and call it an expansion pack, no one whines. But if you chop that content up into little chunks and sell it for 10 bucks, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world.

ME was announced as a trilogy. Despite being able to plan around that, BW still has to use DLC to fill in gaps in the main story. That is a failure on their part.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

We seriously need a "no DLC threads" rule. It's getting to the point where every third post on these forums is complaining about DLC.

 

[bam13302]

im game, lets see, that leaves, valve.... 80% of the independent developers.... i dont think bioware has done dlc (though im not too sure, im not big into RPGs so i dont get many of their games) .... who else.....

 

[LetalisK]

DLC is one of those things that can greatly help the industry or can be used to fuck over gamers. I fucking hate companies that do the latter.

 

[Gitty101]

You're not forced to buy dlc, so go right ahead and boycott it if it makes you happy ^^

Pesonally I only buy the dlc for games that I'm interested in, or if I deem the dlc to be worth the price. I don't think companies should stop making it however, it's always nice to have more things to do in your favourite games ^^

 

[Zaik]

59.99 game and 39.99 expansion or 59.99 game and 8 4.99 DLCs that equal the expansion in length overall.

Somehow the former is praised while the latter is scorned. While forcing 8 different minor stories instead of one larger one *could* be a legitimate complaint, it isn't as if no expansion has ever done that either.

The only real issue I have with DLC is that it *never* drops in price like the game and expansions will and you end up with an issue where you can buy the full game for a third of the price of related DLC, and it really seems entirely pointless. Often, there are "GOTY" or "Ultimate" or "Complete" versions of games released to remedy that, which will have the best of, or all of the related DLC with the game packed in and will lower in price over time. Still, there's no reason for a collection of DLC for a game to cost $80 and a "complete" version to cost $20 other than to punish people who bought the full game shortly before the complete version was released, which seems kind of petty.

 

[FoolKiller]

I see the point of many of the arguments... on both sides. But I rather despise anything that is already on the disc. If its on the disc, I should have access to it. I am not a fan of day 1 DLC either.

If it's something that they threw in because the disc went to print before it was finished, the DLC should be free.

The last thing I hate, and no one really points it out, is the side-effects of DLC. There are 2 of them.

1. If I purchase the DLC and use it that's fine. What I don't like is when it alters your save file in such a way you can't play without the DLC anymore. I was at a friend's house and was playing my Mass Effect character, but she had already purchased one of the DLCs. So I load my character and play a bit. Never bothered to go to the planet or anything. Anyways, I go home and find that the save file has been altered and I can no longer play this save file without the content present on my machine. Needless to say I was rather annoyed.

2. I am not addicted to achievements but I hate it when I go from having a game complete (1000 out of 1000) and then the DLC comes along and undoes it, even though I don't own the DLC.

 

[ghall89]

I don't mind DLC if it's released at least a month after the game comes out, adds something significant, and is reasonably priced. The catch being that I get the full experience from the main game. If it's a story-driven game, I don't mind if the DLC enhances the story but I do mind if the DLC is required to fully experience the main story. One good example is the DLC for Red Faction Guerilla with the prequel DLC. It gave the game some interesting backstory but it wasn't required to understand the plot of the main game.

All in all, if its a good value and adds on to an already solid game, I see no problem with DLC.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

If DLC adds to the game then I buy it. but if its just shitty little "skins" or "maps" then they can fuck off. The shivering isles is my crown jewel of dlc. Oblivion is a massive full game in and of itself; then they give you a whole new world to romp around in. Bitchin. 15 bucks for recycled maps? Go fuck yourself Activision.

 

[carletonman]

There seems to be a line in the sand at which DLC passes from acceptable to unacceptable. If DLC resembles something like "The Passing" in L4D2, or any one of a number of updates to TF2 (I know, both valve examples, work with me here people!), where more content is added for free, or if the content that has to be purchased doesn't affect the core gameplay in any fashion, then it's acceptable. I totally agree with this. I usually only have money for 2-3 games a year, being a university student and having to put a roof over my head and food in my fridge. If those games are stripped of content that WOULD have appeared had DLC not been invented and instead I am forced to make a multitude of micro transactions to get them all, I am going to be seriously cheesed off!

So, if publishers and devs want to charge non-essential DLC (Like Horse Armour) that just adds shiny things and doesn't affect gameplay balance, go for it. HOWEVER, woe be to the people that decide to cut a crucial plot point and charge me extra for it down the line.

As for the issue of DLC vs. Expansion Packs, the whole point of an ep was to add a shit-ton of content to the game. Take for example Red Alert 2 (yeah, it's going back a ways): The initial game was about 20 hours long, if you went through both campaigns and had some fun in the skirmish modes. With the expansion pack of Yuri's Revenge, you got another almost 20 hours of gameplay, a whole new faction, and a non-essential plot development. The same thing with Mechwarrior and the Mercenaries expansions. More mechs, more maps, and a completely unrelated campaign that didn't affect core gameplay. Perfect.

 

[Zantos]

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.

This wonderful person has it down! Expansions that rejuvenate the game are great (Shivering Isles, Lair of the Shadow Broker, Dead Money, Broken Steel) are a great way to keep you interested. I still at random points during conversation say "You've heard of the Sierra Madre casino, we all have."

Day one DLC is a stupid idea and should be murdered though.

 

[AlternatePFG]

I think Fallout 3, New Vegas, Oblivion, and Borderlands are the only games I've played that I thought the DLC was worth it (well most of them anyway, Mad Moxxi and Operation Anchorage were kinda stupid). I bought some DLC for Dragon Age: Origins and it sucked. I bought the Exiled Prince for DA2, and it was awful, added like maybe 2 quests to the game, and one of the most annoying characters in any game I've ever played, and didn't even give you the option to kill him.

Expansions are still great in my book though. As flawed and buggy as it was, I still enjoyed DA: Awakening.