Poll: Are you down with DLC?

[Ninmecu]

I personally don't have a huge gripe with DLC(though by the end of this post, I'm sure I'll be considered hypocritical.), I ignore it and it pesters me endlessly until the inevitable GOTY edition that I purchase to get all the content in one go. I've enjoyed my fair share of Expansion packs. The grandaddy of DLC, Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was the first one I got an expansion pack for, it was great. Still love it, glad I paid for it.

My issues with DLC in their current iterations are that the majority of these things we pay for on top of the initial purchase, used to be unlocked by beating specific challenges. Alternate costumes, in game cheats, map packs, new "end game" content. Used to be you'd beat a game, find a new game+ mode or maybe some post game sidequests to go after that are harder than the main story. Maybe expanding on character developments or just making the game easier a second time around. These days it feels like that added possible "end game" or "post end game" content is being cut out and levied against us for more money.

How did we get to this point with a smile on our face and a song in our hearts? Half the time when I get GOTY editions and the DLC is chopped up into nice tidy sections, I play through them individually post-game. Half the time I feel like I'd've had some serious buyers remorse had I purchased them individually for the cost they throw at me. There are, of course, exceptions where I feel the added content warrants the price tag, but as usual, the market value of things isn't measured by individual strengths and weaknesses, it is instead marked by a generalized price tag that doesn't match the games content. I'd happily pay 10 bucks for what amounts to an expansion pack, hell, I'd happily pay 20, even 30, if it was a game I enjoyed a lot. But, I don't see how I can be expected to pay 10 bucks for 3 multiplayer maps when it ultimately boils down to being "Buy this new chessboard now in Red/Black, Green/Black and Blue/Yellow for 10 bucks! WOO!" I get that some people enjoy the added variety from those packs, and that's fine, that's your perogative. More power to you. I just feel cheated when I hear a ton of DLC is in the works for a product that hasn't even shipped yet. It just burns me. I miss the days where kicking the shit out of a hard side-boss unlocked something cool and unique, instead of paying 2,99$ and being able to say "haha, I got that cool thing too."

Bit more rambly than I'd intended. But ultimately, I'm curious, why have we accepted DLC in it's current form? On a side note. This song is very entertaining on the subject.

 

[TehCookie]

Hint: Don't use apostrophes in polls. They don't work.

DLC is a really good sounding tool, and the only issue with it is the publishers abuse it. I'm down with the concept of DLC, but I hate cut content or too overpriced DLC which is most if it. Dawnguard for Skyrim is the only DLC I've bought and it was worth it. Most of the other stuff I see isn't worth the insane prices. Which must be because I'm cheap since they don't go down so someone must be buying them.

 

[Andy Shandy]

I think agree with our (and Destructoid)'s very own Jim Sterling, when he said in one of the recent Jimquisitions that DLC is a great idea in theory but so many publishers have twisted and perverted it so much that as soon as many people hear it they, in nearly all cases, moan and groan about it - and with good reason.

 

[Aris Khandr]

I like DLC. Rock Band had loads of it, and it legitimately made the game so much better. Similarly, DLC is how we get event Pokemon, which some people hate but I genuinely enjoy. Sure, some devs abuse the idea, but I'd rather just not give them my money rather than condemning a useful tool for being used by the wrong people.

 

[Zhukov]

I've never had a problem with DLC. Any of it. Even the very worst kinds that get other people all frothy.

Day-one DLC? Fine by me.
On-disc DLC? Fine by me.
A palette-swapped skin for $25? Fine by me.
Content cut from the main game in order to be sold as DLC? Fine by me.
Any combination of the above? All fine by me.

So far as I'm concerned, that's just the product that they're offering and if I feel that the DLC has somehow rendered the product unworthy of the asking price then I simply don't buy it.

Developers/publishers don't owe me anything. They offer a product, I choose whether to buy it or not. If they offer a disc with a game on it for X dollars, I decide whether or not it's worth me buying. If they offer a disc with a game on it for X dollars, with a locked piece of content that can be accessed for an additional Y dollars, I decide whether or not it's worth me buying. Same process. I don't think of a game with tons of day-one DLC that I do not wish to buy as being any different to a game that I do not wish to buy for any other reason (bad quality, overly derivative, not to my taste, overpriced etc etc).

Hasn't caused me any problems so far. I am yet to play a game where I felt the experience was lessened or that I was somehow missing out due to DLC.

 

[FourCartridge]

I've never really bought a DLC pack cept for cosmetic stuff I really wanted, and the games I liked to have DLC don't get them. There was a famous quote by Miyamoto about a rushed game being forever bad, but in the current state of things I believe it's a relic of the past and that DLC is a part of that reason(along with balance patches). So I suppose I'm indifferent.

However, I think that it's effect on the industry is a little overstated. Barring some extreme cases, One could reasonably get a $60 game every month and get his/her money's worth without needing it.

 

[MHR]

I love DLC. It keeps the developers concerned with continuing to update and create more content for a game I love rather than making something else, an expensive sequel, or just cashing out. In many cases when you buy a GOTY edition it's a great value because you're getting all this expansive content that you'd never get from most standalone games.

If DLC is bad or cosmetic crap I just don't buy it. It's simple. Nobody is going to goad me into buying DLC just to feel like I have the "whole" game. That's ridiculous.

Day 1 DLC or on-disk DLC is garbage though. That's the only kind of DLC that's going to piss me off.

 

[Kaendris]

I've never had a problem with DLC. Any of it. Even the very worst kinds that get other people all frothy.

Day-one DLC? Fine by me.
On-disc DLC? Fine by me.
Content cut from the main game in order to be sold as DLC? FIne by me.
Any combination of the above? All fine by me.

So far as I'm concerned, that's just the product that they're offering and if I feel that the DLC has somehow rendered the product unworthy of the asking price then I simply don't buy it.

Hasn't caused me any problems so far. I am yet to play a game where I felt the experience was lessened or that I was somehow missing out due to DLC.

I could have said this better myself, but why bother when it was already so wonderfully stated.

Issues with DLC? Nah, if I do not want it, I do not buy it.

Producers of games do not owe me anything, and if I feel that they cheated me by stripping in-game content and making it DLC, I just remember that the next time they are launching titles. At the end of the day, it is a good service, albeit abused by bad people, but so is Nuclear Power.

 

[Clowndoe]

Considering DLC isn't inherently evil, I don't see a good reason to be against DLC. That companies don't know how to use or price DLC is another story. But as long as a company makes 5-10-15$ worth of content after the core game is complete, and prices it accordingly, it would be somewhat entitled of me to think they don't deserve to be paid for their work. Besides, there is such a thing as free DLC. You can't be opposed to that can you?

 

[Windcaler]

The concept of DLC is actually one I like. However it has become such a major focus that publishers and developers are cutting off pieces of their games to sell as DLC and it tends to be overpriced for what you get. Dont even get me started on disk locked content which I question the legality of. Corporate greed basicly stunk up what was a good idea

EDIT: A good parody game that tackles the issues with DLC is DLC quest. You should check it out if only for a laugh

 

[AD-Stu]

I don't have an inherent problem with it. I can think of some examples where it's been really great, given me more experiences in a game I love for a relatively low price. There are other examples where it's just exploitative and I haven't bothered to buy it. Horses for courses really.

 

[loc978]

Personally, I hate the term... and the tiny scope of some of it. I miss expansion packs, distribution model notwithstanding.

As for the actual product... depends. An example of it done right would be Fallout New Vegas (could've called the story DLC packs expansions and the name would have fit well enough). Done wrong... Borderlands 2.

 

[RandV80]

DLC was fine if it stuck to consoles but I don't like it because it's infected PC games as well and while some developers have stayed with the old status quo many others have shifted away from these in favour of pushing an aggressive DLC model.

So for me the "if you don't like it don't buy it" is a moot point because it does effect me negatively in other ways. There are times when it's done right though, Bethesda with Fallout 3 is a good example. The key is you leave in the development tool kit so users can make free mods, while having your developers making 'professional' mods that even with free mods out there you'll want to pay money for.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

All those alternate costumes and minigames and extra whatevers... I liked them better as in-game unlockables, endgame rewards and such. It's a shame we've lost (most of) these to DLC. Then again, I don't have to purchase it, right? What's more, the decision to make GOTY Editions means the game in itself is cheapened considerably, and you can buy it without having to pay the extra money.

 

[Yopaz]

Depends on the DLC. Do I want to pay 10 bucks for a costume? Noooooooooope!

Do I want to pay 10 bucks for a new mission pack with some extended story and new weapons? If the game was good, what's the problem getting more of it? I want more!

DLC isn't good or bad. It can be good, in fact it can be brilliant. It's a matter of getting value for your money. If you're paying a lot just to get a new costume then I don't like it. However I'm not opposed to it existing because I simply won't buy it and if someone actually does then have fun.

I didn't like DLC on the Xbox 360 though because of the point system... If I have 800 points and I buy a 240 point DLC I would be doomed to have leftover points for all my life. Which is why I never bought DLC on the Xbox...

 

[cerebus23]

DLC is fine if it is something they actually work on put together and release after the game is out, or heck even stuff that was worked on late in gold cycle.

DLC is not stuff they stripped out of the core game and made you pay to unlock.

hence i draw the lines there, i consider most day one dlc utter garbage, most of the time it is just locked out features in games that back in the day would have been part of the game period.

Or they could go cdproject way and just give it all out free, then we could look forward to DLC not having to buy it everyone gets it and shares the same gaming experience, problem solved.

 

[Gennadios]

I don't dislike DLC as a concept, implementation sucks.

In Kingdoms of Amateur(Thanks Yahtzee!) DLC items had a habit of crashing the game.

In Fallout: New Vegas, the Sturdy Caravan Shotgun, my favorite shotty on the game (on aesthetics) was implemented so poorly that it didn't actually count as a "shotgun" when calculating shotgun bonuses through perks or for doing repairs. It was a painful 3 weeks before the construction kit came out that I could actually give it some staying power.

In the EAWare games they tended to be buggy, never patched, and they didn't really work "seamlessly" in that they were a bit more linear, the dialogs didn't have as many or no options... you could just feel that the content being played wasn't really part of the game.

In almost all cases DLC items are just dumped into your inventory to either be overpowered for that stage in the game or be overpowered because the equivalent items in the game were too expensive to be bought at the stage of the game that you get the DLC items.

Basically, meh. I stopped giving a damn after I realized all I'm getting from my pre-orders is broken immersion.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I like it if it's some sort of addition to the game and not something that's clearly been cut out to be sold separately.

I've never had a problem with DLC. Any of it. Even the very worst kinds that get other people all frothy.

Day-one DLC? Fine by me.
On-disc DLC? Fine by me.
Content cut from the main game in order to be sold as DLC? FIne by me.
Any combination of the above? All fine by me.

So far as I'm concerned, that's just the product that they're offering and if I feel that the DLC has somehow rendered the product unworthy of the asking price then I simply don't buy it.

I mean if you're offering a product you have the right to sell it however and at whatever price you want. On a product-to-product basis I would say "if you don't like it don't buy it." and that would solve the problem. Unfortunately not enough people have taken the "don't buy it" approach and it's created an environment where it's common practice to strip out 4-5 hours of a game, or a fourth of the in game weapons, or a story critical character, or 5-10 characters in a fighting game.

I feel like a lot of games now are sold stripped of a lot of the content that previously would have been in them to begin with. It's shitty for the consumer no matter how you spin it. Even if you don't feel the DLC is worth it, it's more a matter of tolerating a noticeable chunk missing from your game than being content with it.

Even then, that's just something that bums me out. Something that makes me absolutely fucking furious though is when games sell DLC passes and then STILL try to nickel and dime you on bullshit side DLC. I spent 30 fucking dollars on top of the 60 I already spent. I'm playing into your stupid extortionist game because clearly I want the full product. But then "oh hey look, we released a gun that shoots boomerangs! Oh you bought the season pass? No that's only good for the other unannounced DLCs that haven't come out yet so at this point you've given us 30 dollars for 10 dollars worth of content, and this? You've gotta pay for this like everybody else. But don't worry, a year from now that 30 dollar investment will have saved you a whole 5 dollars, assuming the DLC we gave you is all stuff you would have paid for anyways!"

Also I feel like I have to mention "Injustice" by extremely appropriate name, because they recently just up and decided the DLC pass wasn't worth shit anymore and in addition to all the costumes you didn't get from it, now they're releasing more characters you don't get either.

 

[skywolfblue]

I'm fine with the concept of DLC.

I like expansion pack style DLC, like Minerva's Den (Bioshock 2) or Undead Nightmare (Red Dead Redemption).

I don't much care for "Differently colored suit of armor" DLC, so I've never bought any.

Some companies have had some pretty bad practices associated with DLC.

So it's a mixed bag, but in most cases you still have the option to simply not buy it, and I'd encourage everyone to exercise that right whenever they feel something isn't worth it.

 

[piinyouri]

Depends. If it's something were they have some off time after the game development has wrapped up and they want to work on some little things to keep busy, that's fine.

Something like what Rome 2 has, where in some culture like the Spartans are IN the game, but not available to play as until you make an arbitrary purchase, that is bad. They know it, we know it and there's no excuse.