No DLC should be more than 5 bucks

[mykalwane]

Ok I have to argue no that is not true. Each type of DLC should have a set bar though I don't think 5 bucks for all would work. Now it has to be + a certain amount so that Microsoft gets a cut and Y company can make some money. I think there is a tier for each amount of data or type of data where that is.

For example appearence pack for Mass Effect 2 is 160 BW Points , 160 MS Points , & $1.99 PSN.
So 2 bucks for some different clothing. So optimistically that means Biowear is probably making 1 dollar off of that. Now that seems fair for Biowear to charge that amount. Now the time and effort into making a level DLC like with arrival and charging 560 BW Points , 560 MS Points , & and $6.99 PSN seems at the fair mark as well. If they had charge the level price for some clothing options I would of thought that as unfair. The best course of action would then be to not purchase it or wait till there was a sale.

At the end of the day you deciding to buy it or not is what determines if they make more. There is going to be that x item where they do charge more then normal to see if they can get away with it. The best course of action there is don't buy. All they know on their end is if their product did well or not to justify making another DLC. It cost money to make something, even with something as simple as a picture pack. So if you don't buy x item at y price they know not to do so.

 

[fozzy360]

I absolutely disagree. DLC's like "Undead Nightmare" or the Borderlands and New Vegas add-ons are easily worth 10 bucks. It's true that a lot of DLC is overpriced (Arkham City, I'm looking at you) but I don't mind paying more for good content.

Yes, exactly. DLC cost should match how much content you're getting. If the DLC is charging more than $5 for content that lasts no more than an hour or two, then that's just stupidly overpriced. On the other hand, something like Undead Nightmare that comes with a campaign lasting more than five hours, a co-op mode with zombies, multiplayer skins, etc., for $10 is perfect. It's just gonna be process as publishers discover how much they're going to be able to get away with until gamers puch back on overpriced DLC.

 

[wintercoat]

DLC, that is, things like standalone missions, new team members, weapon packs, armor or weapon skins, etc. should be $5 and under, depending on the content. Full expansion packs should be priced $10 and up, depending on the amount of content.

 

[Palademon]

I think it makes sense that they should cost less.
I pay like £40 for a game, and about £8 for DLC.
Does anyone really think a few new maps, characters, or missions are worth almost a quarter of the full game?

Big expansions are fine and in many cases can even be considered full games themselves.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Depends on the DLC and the price. Most DLC is worthless, but it depends what I consider to be worth or not. Even the new DLC for ME3 Prothean i thought was worthless regardless of what they charged.

 

[Ickorus]

What about packs like Shivering Isles? Were you unhappy with paying over $5 for that? Just because some companies overcharge for lazy DLC, doesn't mean that the quality of all DLC should have to suffer.

Shivering Isles is an expansion.

Developers need to remember the difference between the two, DLC is fluff content like new characters and skins and such where expansions add stuff like new areas and storylines.

 

[capper42]

What about packs like Shivering Isles? Were you unhappy with paying over $5 for that? Just because some companies overcharge for lazy DLC, doesn't mean that the quality of all DLC should have to suffer.

Shivering Isles is an expansion.

Developers need to remember the difference between the two, DLC is fluff content like new characters and skins and such where expansions add stuff like new areas and storylines.

I don't see the words being particularly different. Most developers market their "expansions" as DLC now anyway. People categorise too much. Either way, my main point of the price of DLC or expansions being based on the amount and quality of content they provide still stands.

 

[acer840]

I'm willing to pay for DLC if it's worth it. If I don't believe I won't get my monies worth out of it, I won't buy it. It's called choice, and the developers have the choice of pricing an item as much as I have the choice of buying it.

So no, I don't belive it should be $5 maximum.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Dragon Age 2 has 2 DLC packs. Those packs cost $10 each.

At least one of those DLC packs is intended as an expansion pack. While $10 is a bit much, it seems to me that expansion packs can be very ligitimately sold for more than a regular DLC.

Spoiler: Also,

 

[josemlopes]

I dont mind to pay for DLC although I would like to see DLC price drops. I can wait for a game to get cheaper but that never seems to happen with DLC, there are some sales every now and then but still

 

[Fayathon]

Quality and quantity of added content needs to be taken into consideration. For example, the DLC expansions for New Vegas added whole new areas to explore, new weapons, new items and a whole lot of shit for ten bucks each. I would probably pay more for them because of how much they actually add to the game itself.

In contrast, the map packs for shit like CoD, where you get three or four new maps, 'new' providing that they didn't just port over old maps from previous titles, going for $15 is ridiculous IMO. This is especially true when it cuts you out of a significant portion of the game you play (IE the multiplayer in the aforementioned CoD games).

I dont mind to pay for DLC although I would like to see DLC price drops. I can wait for a game to get cheaper but that never seems to happen with DLC, there are some sales every now and then but still

This too, games get cheaper as time goes on, why the hell doesn't DLC?

 

[A-D.]

Actually that Point is rather valid, DLC is downloadable Content, but that term is just a blanket Statement, i mean everything you download for a game is a DLC, there is no distinction between Maps, Guns, whole Expansions etc, so pricing all for essentially the highest amount you can charge is stupid. And by that i mean say a Expansion type DLC costs 30 Bucks, that doesnt mean that the same company can charge 30 Bucks for a DLC that contains not even half of what the Expansion offers in amount of content or even quality of content.

I think DLC should be essentially small Stuff, a few Quests maybe, a couple Guns, or Maps etc and charged for a relatively cheap Price. I mean you sell more by charging less because more People are likely to buy it. And just term anything that is essentially a Expansion as such and charge more for it, given that there is alot more content in them.

Take ME2 DLCs, they cost about roughly the same, but you dont get the same amount of Content or quality in each case, i havent checked lately and they could cost less now but yeah. Arrival for example was crap. Or how about Firewalker? the Firewalker DLC was in terms of content worse than Project Overlord, which cost about the same amount.

DLCs should be priced to what they contain, if they contain only a couple handful of Guns or Quests, or they are simply inferior to another DLC you have released, then it should cost less. Charge based on Content provided and the Quality of that Content instead of charging as much as possible for every single DLC you release.

 

[legend forge]

And preferably 3 bucks or less.

Dragon Age 2 has 2 DLC packs. Those packs cost $10 each.

THe game can be bought for $20 bucks new.

Umm... No. A large grouping of very diverse products should not all be the same unreasonably low price. That's like saying every single car should cost as much as a Smart Car.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

DLC should be priced based on the content. Some DLC adds whole new stories with new characters and areas, that should cost more that a bunch of skins and weapon textures. You can't say all DLC should be priced the same, there are a lot of different kinds of DLC.

 

[TheLastSamurai14]

I dont mind to pay for DLC although I would like to see DLC price drops. I can wait for a game to get cheaper but that never seems to happen with DLC, there are some sales every now and then but still

This too, games get cheaper as time goes on, why the hell doesn't DLC?

Steam at least drops the price of a game's DLC whenever said game goes on sale. Ideally, though, a publisher should look at dropping the price of DLC according to the retail price of the game at the time. Therefore, as price drops occur, DLC becomes cheaper.

 

[Johnson McGee]

I dont mind to pay for DLC although I would like to see DLC price drops. I can wait for a game to get cheaper but that never seems to happen with DLC, there are some sales every now and then but still

This too, games get cheaper as time goes on, why the hell doesn't DLC?

Steam at least drops the price of a game's DLC whenever said game goes on sale. Ideally, though, a publisher should look at dropping the price of DLC according to the retail price of the game at the time. Therefore, as price drops occur, DLC becomes cheaper.

I agree that DLC needs to drop in price over time. If early adopters want to pay $10 to $15 for maps and skins then that's fine, but that doesn't mean that should be the benchmark for pricing forever.

I find it ridiculous that I had to buy fallout 3 all over again during the steam sale to get the DLC for it since the GOTY version was $15 but adding the DLC to the original version I had would have been around $60 on the PS3. The game's 3 years old ffs, how many people are going to buy DLC they missed on an old game with no price reductions?

Capcha = better half, how ironic.

 

[Waaghpowa]

DLC should cost whatever people are willing to pay for it. Capitalism, ho!

I may despise capitalism, but I'll at least accept it as being integral to our economic system.

When it comes to DLC, it really depends. Most of the Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC was not worth it at all. 10 bucks for an extra hour is absurd. Now DX HR Missing link DLC is how it should be done, 15 bucks, almost 10 hours of game. Not many modern full priced games have that much gameplay.

 

[Bvenged]

I think that DLC should go down in price relative to the games. Reach is now £19.99 DIRECT DOWNLOAD from XBL, or even less new from a store or the internet, but the map packs still cost 800/1200msp (£6.50/£9.75). So if you bought all 10 maps in the 3 map packs, you've now paid more than the game itself which has 10 maps, forge, theatre, campaign, and everything that makes the map pack playable in the first place.

I'm not asking for some complex algorithm crap that works out the mean price from all teh retail outlets selling the game which reflects DLC prices accordingly, but to make a simple price structure based around the price a game would cost if it was on XBL for download. So a £20 game that used to have 1200msp DLC when it was £40, should have 600msp DLC now it's £20 D2D.

It's the fact that older games have such expensive content in comparison to themselves that I don't even buy much DLC any more. Drop the price accordingly and I'll buy more DLC, therefore give you a better recommendation and spend more money, Xbox. I would've thought they'd work this one out themselves...

 

[Iwata]

I'm just pissed DLC maintains a constant price point and never seems to go down in price like the game itself.

Say what?!

I have bought TONS of DLC after price drops, from the GTAIV episodes, to Undead Nightmare, the expansions for Borderlands...