Erradicate DLC ?

[DementedSheep]

I personally have no issue with DLC IF they really are additional non critical content. As far as im concerned game developers are allowed to sell stuff as extra content. If you buy a burger and they say you can pay an additional 50c for bacon are they in the wrong? DLC also allows for smaller projects to be made after the game has been released and it makes a good testing ground.

To use Mass Effect as an example. Firewalker, Zaeed, Kasumi, Overlord I have no issue with. To be perfectly honest I?m not really happy with LotSB and Arrival. Since they are both very big plot points I feel they should be in the game. Especially Arrival witch ties directly into ME3.

Games not being worth the price is a separate issue. If I think what I am getting without the DLC is worth the price I buy it. If I don?t then don?t buy it. DLC dose not factor into it.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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.

I didn't buy it but at least it wasn't as much of a ripoff as the gta4 dlc: $20 per mission pack.

I like dlc when it's a good value and adds onto a game that's already a good value: I didn't have any problems buying a couple of the Fallout 3 packs and I actually bought all of the Borderlands packs (between online and oncouch multiplayer, I got a lot of miles out of that one).

However, if we're being asked to pay $20 for some extra missions, $15 for a few multiplayer maps, or even $5 for something that was already on the disc when I bought it, I get pissed off and wish for dlc to be eradicated as well.

The problem is that there are way too many suckers/fanboys out there who are willing to pay a ton of cash for very little in return so even the few gamers who are savvy consumers don't buy into it, the ones who do offer enough encouragement for the prices to just keep on going up.

 

[ecoho]

Oh dear god, how dare they do extra work and expect to be paid for it?! How dare they give fans more stuff and not apologize for it! Seriously, it's one thing for them to lock stuff on the disk. It's another for them to develop new stuff and people ***** they don't get it for free.

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.

Seriously? So a company finishes a game, but because they DARE to give people more content (and expect to actually get paid for their hard work) you get angry? That's some of the most self-entitled crap I've ever heard.

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.

Yes, how DARE they release more gameplay! It's not like the fans would instead whine about it taking too long if they spent 5 years working on every game or something!

Finish a game? Hard work? More gameplay? ... If I put that sort of effort into my work, I'd get FIRED! Not to mention my boss would probably use his boot to show me out the door.

I EARN my money, my parents don't make it for me, so I understand the value of it. Yes, how DARE they expect me to pay full price for a half-assed piece of software any high school kid could have come up with given the time. They are supposed to be PROFESSIONALS. I know you don't have a clue what that means but it is important in the REAL WORLD.

if you think its that easy to make a good game go do it yourself and when they add DLC to expand a contained story that DOESNT mean they shiped a half assed-peice of software. As to day 1 DLC which i beleave were your drawing your ignorance from. Its a way for the publisher to get money out of used sells(extra credits did 2 episodes on why this shit happens) if your a professional like you say you are (and i dont think you are) you would understand this.

Oh and one more thing, if you put in half the effort that these guys do when they make a game your boss would FUCKING LOVE YOU! durring a games design most programers work about 12-15hour shifts to make sure that 1 isnt a 0 which would make character a turn blue instead of tan.

edit: stupidity was the wrong word it has now been corrected.

 

[ecoho]

A bunch of things I said taken completely out of context.

A load of BS.

Ok, clearly arguing with you is getting me nowhere.

Argue better.

You seem to like taking my every sentence out of context and inferring things from them that I'm not saying at all.

Let's establish the points

You did say "Ok, yes, some developers might remove content to sell as DLC later, but it's a very small number." and later admitted you didn't actually know how many do it. I'll admit, it was a bit of an irrelevant point and maybe a cheap shot but I also admit I enjoyed it.

You didn't say patches didn't exist before DLC, I admit that was a simplification but you did reiterate that they didn't exist but to fix the most game breaking of bugs which is still wrong.

You did ask me about I have seen the increased volume of patches being released today, which I didn't directly answer but I will now, no not really. Then you reasserted the point that got me to want to respond to you to begin with and that we need to spend more money on the games we already bought so that we can "pay for patches".

Before DLC, most games were not supported with patches after the first couple months of release. Now, you can make the argument that there are games that continue to release patches and content updates without charging DLC. That is technically correct, but I have to ask, was this happening before the advent of DLC?

The point I was making is that developers have to pay people to make patches. Some developers make this money through the sale of DLC. Some do not. The point I was trying to make is that it is a valid business model and to treat it as nothing more than greed is a fallacy.

DLC extends the life-cycle of games you already purchased.

Games I purchase should already have a lifecycle in plan that accounts for patches.

Buy it or don't,

I don't.

no one's forcing you. Just stop bitching about it's existence.

I'm not actually bitching about its existence but you are bitching about people not being completely spineless and I think that's a whole lot worse.

None of this was directed at you. Perhaps I should've used a second paragraph to establish that, but it wasn't. And by extend the life-cycle, I wasn't referring to patches, I was referring to the fact that, if you were to purchase the DLC, you'd go back and play the game, even if you'd already finished it.

stop feeding the troll!! he wants this attention dont give it to him.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I don't mind DLC that is like an expansion and was actually an idea left over that couldn't of been finished. I do not like Day 1 DLC or stuff that has obviously been withheld from the game or weapon DLC. Weapon DLC should really be free as to be honest people on the PC make DLC(mods) for free. They are for the most part a hell of a lot better than official DLC.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

"given the time." ... You might want to try reading and understanding. I don't need to prove anything to you. And keep your virus ridden pornsites to yourself. I'm really not interested in whatever misinformation your offering.

I love how you call it misinformation before even inspecting it. TV Tropes is a well liked and appreciated site.

That said, for me it entirely depends on the content of the DLC and the price of the DLC. I honestly don't mind to pay ?10 for what amounts to an expansion pack to a game, adding whole new fun to all layers of the game. But I'm not going to spend ?15 on a 4 map pack on top of an already ?60 FPS. Or ?10 on a costume or two for a fighting game.

So yeah, DLC is definitely a double edged sword, on one hand it can be a great way to get more content to a game that traditionally would've been handled as an expansion pack, or just to add new ideas and features to a game to extend its lifetime. And on the flipside you get faux DLC that is technically already on the disc but won't be unlocked unless you buy it or pre-order at a certain store. That in my opinion is just cheesy. So yeah, DLC is fine, as long as the price/quality balance is also fine.

 

[Antari]

"given the time." ... You might want to try reading and understanding. I don't need to prove anything to you. And keep your virus ridden pornsites to yourself. I'm really not interested in whatever misinformation your offering.

I love how you call it misinformation before even inspecting it. TV Tropes is a well liked and appreciated site.

That said, for me it entirely depends on the content of the DLC and the price of the DLC. I honestly don't mind to pay ?10 for what amounts to an expansion pack to a game, adding whole new fun to all layers of the game. But I'm not going to spend ?15 on a 4 map pack on top of an already ?60 FPS. Or ?10 on a costume or two for a fighting game.

So yeah, DLC is definitely a double edged sword, on one hand it can be a great way to get more content to a game that traditionally would've been handled as an expansion pack, or just to add new ideas and features to a game to extend its lifetime. And on the flipside you get faux DLC that is technically already on the disc but won't be unlocked unless you buy it or pre-order at a certain store. That in my opinion is just cheesy. So yeah, DLC is fine, as long as the price/quality balance is also fine.

I don't just click on links. It can be a very bad plan at times. Either way with him talking about rape and such embedding the link it might as well be porn for all I care.

Atleast you qualify the difference that I also see. Expansions are not nessisarily all that bad because they usually have enough content to justify the price they have. I have yet to encounter any recent DLC thats worth more than a dollar. Considering they already have the game engine established and are just adding new content its not exactly rocket science. And if they made the engine that incapable of handling changes, making their jobs more difficult. Well that wouldn't be my problem. And I sure as hell won't reward them for putting themselves in that spot.

 

[Korten12]

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/

I will refer you to this piece of informative discussion and i suggest you watch the first video. It compares gaming in the 90's to modern gaming and shows us that they were as equally sucky, the video i linked you (the second part) touches on the subject of DLC's and why they are not as bad as you think and why they existed in the 90's.

Great Great video, sadly man will ignore it.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

I don't just click on links. It can be a very bad plan at times. Either way with him talking about rape and such embedding the link it might as well be porn for all I care.

Atleast you qualify the difference that I also see. Expansions are not nessisarily all that bad because they usually have enough content to justify the price they have. I have yet to encounter any recent DLC thats worth more than a dollar. Considering they already have the game engine established and are just adding new content its not exactly rocket science. And if they made the engine that incapable of handling changes, making their jobs more difficult. Well that wouldn't be my problem. And I sure as hell won't reward them for putting themselves in that spot.

Well to be fair, you still need to pay programmers, writers, artists (textures, modellers, etc) and/or sound engineers to make your DLC work. And they do get paid per hour so in the end I do understand that they charge a little bit for DLC, but it honestly shouldn't be ?15 for 4 maps like Black Ops is pulling right now.

Especially if you know that as far back as the original Unreal Tournament, developers have been adding map packs to games for free.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I never understood the whole "the developers only give you half a game at first" arguement. I've never felt that you had to buy some DLC to complete a game. All the DLC I've ever played has only added some extra content to the game, it never completes it.

DLC is great. It allows to you come back to a game that you love and play some new content for it. Where before if you beat a game you can only go through all the stuff you've already done, with DLc you can get some new missions, characters, or levels well after the game has been released. The closest thing to DLC that they had were expansion packs back then.

 

[John Funk]

No.

While some companies can overcharge, DLC is not a bad thing in itself. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you think otherwise, you do not understand videogame development.

 

[Free Thinker]

I do not mind the cost of DLC like Oblivion's Shivering Isles, Dragon Age: Origins expansion Awakening, etc. These should be high quality. These should be half, or more time to complete to complete the original. Quality should be a given for these. Disappointing fans with massive DLC is a near death sentence.

What gets me is Multiplayer DLC. You are making me pay $15 to $20 for 5 multiplayer maps. FIVE! I could get an expansion pack which is more content per dollar. I'm looking at you Activision and Call of Duty!

 

[Angel Molina]

-Original Post

I wouldn't really blame the developers so much as I would blame the publishers... But then again, that isn't always the case. Regardless, I have only bought a very few DLC (for Halo Reach and COD:BOPs) and have regretted those decisions ever since. I could just as easily get a full actual game from the $20 bin at gamestop as opposed to some extra multiplayer maps or an extended campaign..

 

[nin_ninja]

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.

Read more carefully, I already said that.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

No,don't ruin it for us just because you don't like it

 

[-Dragmire-]

There's a couple day 1 dlc for jrpgs, but they're free. I think it's a great way to go, make the first couple free then charge for the later ones. Granted these are mostly just free item dlcs.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

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.

I could not have said it better. I'd rather pay $10 at a time for extra content spread out over a year or so than have nothing while waiting for the sequel (if there even is one).

 

[Paragon Fury]

We still are getting full games. Developers have yet to actually cut core content out and force you to buy it separately to complete the game. If you buy a game new physically or digitally, you get the full game experience. When they do, you can ***** about it. But non-important things like extra characters or extra maps aren't any reason to get your undies in a knot.

And as for DLC coming out earlier now, its simply because developers have gotten better and more efficient at making it, and games have to have their final content cut and agreed upon a lot earlier in order to make deadlines and publishing dates.