Erradicate DLC ?

[hawkeye52]

DLC is a horrible idea since its just letting game developers release under developed games and chrage you for them not finishing it.

Some stuff that is DLC should really be classed as expansion packs i.e the DLC's which add an absolute shit load of extra content such as shivering isles for oblivion to name one while others just dont deserve the light of day. For example the DLC for MW2 in which they just copy pasted the maps from MW1 and charged you £10-£15 for it. Also games that are DLC reliant for making money cut down the modding community a lot because developers naturally don't want modders just to copy their maps and put them out for free on seperate mods which is probably what would have happened in MW1 if they had tried DLC for the computer. However in MW2 they removed mod support in all forms and charged ludicrous amounts for shite DLC.

Also on this matter DLC that is intrusive on people for not having it like for example joining a server or lobby then being promptly kicked out of it because you don't have the right DLC is crap as well. It is essentially just inconveniencing you on purpose to wear people down so they buy the DLC

Also something thats been annoying me recently is the TF2 shop and i consider it to be the only completely shite thing that valve has ever done. They used to just release weapons for free and the hats also would have no effect on the game whereas now there are just some weapons which are just OP like i think one of the scouts pistols does extra damage and has knockback or a slow if i remember correctly. I also think i have seen some hats where its just a straight health buff with no detriments meaning that the people who pay for said hat or are just extremely lucky get an advantage of silly proportions over other players

 

[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.

Nope. If you don't buy the DLC then you miss side stories on the overarching storyline. Lair of the Shadow Broker, Arrival are all completely optional. As in You don't have to do it at all, in fact if you played Lair of the Shadow Broker you would know its all about Liara and her thing she mentions when you meet her. So your idea of lazy writing becomes the fleshing out of a story of a former compatriot, on of which you had very little interaction with in Mass Effect 2 and is OPTIONAL. You can keep making things up and pretending your right.

One thing, ME3 opens up with Shepard on trial for the events that took place during Arrival. I never mentioned LotSB. I don't see where you got that from. People who haven't played Arrival are going to be very confused.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

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.

oh ya borderlands definatly impresses me with there dlc

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

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

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/04/gaming-in-the-90s-really-sucked/

and why they (DLC) existed in the 90's.

well at that time it wasn't really DLC, when games sold very well, and had a good bunch of followers, they used to make those "Expansions" that actually added much much more content to the original game, and not just a horse for some bucks if you get my meaning.

at least it wasn't a marketing thing like nowadays.

 

[Hyper-space]

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

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/04/gaming-in-the-90s-really-sucked/

and why they (DLC) existed in the 90's.

well at that time it wasn't really DLC, when games sold very well, and had a good bunch of followers, they used to make those "Expansions" that actually added much much more content to the original game, and not just a horse for some bucks if you get my meaning.

at least it wasn't a marketing thing like nowadays.

Your thinking of EXPANSIONS, not mission packs like DLC's where back then. Companies would often release the same game with just a few sprite changes and different skins, because they couldn't release it as a DLC like now, i suggest you watch the video.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

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

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/04/gaming-in-the-90s-really-sucked/

and why they (DLC) existed in the 90's.

well at that time it wasn't really DLC, when games sold very well, and had a good bunch of followers, they used to make those "Expansions" that actually added much much more content to the original game, and not just a horse for some bucks if you get my meaning.

at least it wasn't a marketing thing like nowadays.

Your thinking of EXPANSIONS, not mission packs like DLC's where back then. Companies would often release the same game with just a few sprite changes and different skins, because they couldn't release it as a DLC like now, i suggest you watch the video.

Yeah you got a point in that one, which enhance the subject that DLC is then overused (and outdated?). I loled at "the DLC Bullsh¡t content". But it's interesting that, even the minimum new content that devs release, for a fee, are in reality worse when compared with what modders would do, for free, if they had the tools. which adds another question: did they planned on purpose to overuse the DLC's in consoles, since those who owns consoles can't do anything about it? while on the PC, tools & mods give an infinite amount of replayability and creativity to the original game.

Maybe that's why most of the developers released their games on console/s only, since it's more profitable...

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

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.

This is the equivalent of a pimp selling to his girls drugs to keep the feeling that their alive, while still having control over their dependency...

 

[Finebrew]

Depends on the game if its good or bad. Some DLC you can tell they are just being greedy bastards other DLC is totally worth the purchase price.

 

[Saelune]

DLC needs to be worth it, and not a scam or a piece of crap.
Resident Evil 5 versus DLC is BAD. That should have been in the game.
Oblivion Shivering Isles DLC is good though, since its alot for your money, and obviously ADDS to the game, instead of just completing the origional experience.


Personal Issue: Keep DLC achievements in 250 increments. It irks me all the 1100's, and 1450's. (This kind of annoyance though, I admit, makes me think I have OCD (or something lesser but similar), since it is beyond a minor problem for me...)

 

[ecoho]

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.

no.....this is what you do with a game thats been out for what 4 years now? DLC should add contant to the game that acualy means something. you dont have to buy the DLC if you dont want to it doesnt effect the story of the game it just makes it easier to understand what follows.(BTW if you bought it for the PS3 then i have absolutely no pity for you as you got ALL the other DLC free)

 

[Laxman9292]

So where was this problem when we had to go to the store and buy an expansion pack? It is the same damn thing, except now we get to sit on our ass and buy it from the comfort of our homes. Understandably some DLC is just cheap shit to milk a few more dollars/euros/pesos from their fans (ex: Oblivion Horse Armor)but there are some DLC that are genuinely worthwhile purchases, just like there are good and bad games.

It is up to the buyer to decide if it is worth it to buy a DLC, but I hardly think there are many cases of devs intentionally cutting content to save for DLC for the sole reason of making more money (cutting it to save as DLC because they could not finish it by launch date is a pretty legitimate reason). I think that people are just getting paranoid that because something like this could happen, then it has to be happening. And that does not make sense.

 

[Laxman9292]

DLC is a horrible idea since its just letting game developers release under developed games and chrage you for them not finishing it.

Some stuff that is DLC should really be classed as expansion packs i.e the DLC's which add an absolute shit load of extra content such as shivering isles for oblivion to name one while others just dont deserve the light of day. For example the DLC for MW2 in which they just copy pasted the maps from MW1 and charged you £10-£15 for it. Also games that are DLC reliant for making money cut down the modding community a lot because developers naturally don't want modders just to copy their maps and put them out for free on seperate mods which is probably what would have happened in MW1 if they had tried DLC for the computer. However in MW2 they removed mod support in all forms and charged ludicrous amounts for shite DLC.

I think you are being more than a little paranoid about devs releasing unfinished games and all, sure they can but I seriously doubt it happens nearly as much as people seem to think.

And I just had to counter your CoD DLC complaint. It is not as simple as copying and pasting maps. I assume you realize that the maps use a looooooooooooooot of code, yes? And furthermore that most of the code that is used in MW1 is probably significantly different than MW2 or Black Ops? they would have to have teams of programmers running through god knows how many lines of code, changing variables that no longer exist and writing completely new code to account for different aspects of the game. Then they would have another team have to debug all the maps over again, give feedback to the programmers, etc repeat ad nauseum.

My main point is that even though you may think it is a simple operation (which it is not) even if it were, Activision would still have to pay their workers for porting the maps over. And if they have to pay to do this, you are damn sure we have to pay for it too. It just depends on how badly you want the maps. But it is not like it does not cost a thing to move maps over.

 

[Pyode]

...

Name me these so called 'half-games' please, otherwise I guess I don't understand the argument.

If i named them all, you'd be stuck with reading a fucking novel.

I've got time. However I doubt you actually have much evidence at all to support your extreme claims, let alone as much as you say.

Almost every single time, DLC is necessary to understand/fully experience the game. Take, for example, Assassin's Creed 2. Without their (excuse the laughter) DLC, the plot becomes a further tangled piece of shit.

What are you talking about?

Assassins Creed 2 was absolutely fine without the DLC. No one knew anything was missing until the DLC came out. Not to mention it only involved Ezio and not Desmond, the true main character.

There are a few (very few, mind) games where the DLC is released a good 6 months after the game is released, containing new worlds to explore, filled with great content...for every "Shivering Isles", there's at least 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (FIVE HUNDRED MILLION BAJILLION) "Horse Armour"s.

Thank you for contradicting yourself by establishing the fact that the majority of DLC is, in fact, completely optional and inconsequential.

That said, i've never purchased DLC for a game before. If a game has pre-order DLC, or announced DLC before the game is released, that game comes off my "buy list". The few games with DLC that i own are because Steam was kind enough to drop the price to that of a sandwich and include all the DLC to boot.

Thank you again for destroying your own point by admitting that you don't actually have any relevant experience with the issue at hand.

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.

In your very post you explained why you are wrong.

Mass Effect 2 was a "self contained story". Mass Effect 2 was about Shepard being resurrected, building a team, and fighting the Collectors. That's what they advertised, that's what you paid for, and that's what you got.

If they had then released a comic afterwards that told the Arrival story before Mass Effect 3 was released (just like they did with Mass Efect 2 and the Redemption comic) I don't think you would be on these forums raging that it wasn't in Mass Effect 2.

[edit] Sorry, I accidentally hit "post" before I was done writing. It's complete now.

 

[Chewster]

No. I think we should boycott companies that use DLC as a way of selling you a "proper" ending to a game (which is usually done at the time of release and ought to be included), or else don't give you value for your bread.

I don't mind shelling out for some (some of the Fallout 3 stuff was decent) but a lot of times, you have to be wary. A lot of it is a scam, it would seem to me.

I also think that it is obnoxious when companies release free stuff for games but certain entities like Microsoft make you pay for it anyway. That variety of shady nonsense needs to fucking well end.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

That'd be pretty nice if they stopped making DLC. I'd be a lot more willing to actually buy games if they stopped selling me half the game at full price, and then forcing me to pay extra for the rest of it. Horseshit. >>

 

[Bobbity]

The DLC is extra, it never is necessary to purchase. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Sometimes I want the extra content, so I have no desire to boycott.

I don't even care if it's day 1 DLC encoded on the disk. It's extra.

Name me these so called 'half-games' please, otherwise I guess I don't understand the argument.

My problem is only when content is cut to be released as DLC. Something like Lair of the Shadow Broker, or Arrival was rather integral to ME's story, but to experience that, you have to pay for DLC. Not only does this punish players who, for various reasons do not purchase the DLC, but it also punishes the somewhere between 30-50% of players who are not connected to the PSN or Xbox Live.

When the content simply adds onto the game though, I'm fine with it; even glad that it's been made. Most of the Oblivion DLC is a pretty good example of this.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

The problem with DLC is that its being abused. I have no problem with a company releasing a full game and then adding onto it later. I also don't mind paying for DLC that I feel is worth my money. Fallout 3's DLC was fairly long and quite inexpensive comapred to say...when I bought Arrival for ME2 and beat it in an hour and it was a piece of crap.
Worse still is releasing games without content just to add it as DLC later. Dragon Age 2 did this with Sebastian.
DLC can be a good thing. It can breath new life into a game. Unfortunately most companies just look at it as a way to nickel and dime their players.

 

[scorch 13]

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.

I think case 1 can fall down in some situations.

DA:O and ME2. Both had day 1 DLC (free if you got the game new) which were Shale and Zaeed. Shale was supposed to be in the game, but they ran out of time so instead of pushing back the release date they added her as DLC. She affected the story, had tons of dialogue, and was an amazing tank.

Zaeed on the other hand is just a throwaway mercenary who has no personality, dialogue or importance at all.

Actually you can get zaeed for free if you bought the game new.You also get some new weapons,armor,and the normandy crash site dlc's.