Poll: Are you down with DLC?

[Something Amyss]

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.

Unfortunately, this is the end result of any idea when applied to the gaming market, or any other commercial market. It's pretty much a given that someone's going to come along and ask "how can I exploit this?"

The capacity to patch a game later is, theoretically, a phenomenal thing. Then publishers come along and urge developers to rush out the gate, or the devs do it anyway, with a "patch later" mentality. Digital services? Awesome. Then it becomes a way to pocket the savings and a way to try and make people rebuy games (The upcoming streaming "backwards compatibility" for next gen, for example). Free to Play? An awesome idea until you see it in action. Same with microtransactions (since they are often used to sell power whether in free to play or paid games).

DLC is just another part of this chain. The idea is sound, but then they look for ways to exploit it.

The kneejerk reaction is certainly understandable, if frequently premature.

I buy the DLC I like and don't buy the DLC I don't like.

One thing we need more of is transparency. We've been lied to so many times it's a wonder we trust anyone in gaming.

 

[Halfie2]

I don't really hate dlc, I just don't buy it unless it's either very good or decent enought and cheap(like 75-90% off cheap).
I actually bought a lot of DLC for killing floor but haven't picked up the newest weapon pack(s?) because I haven't spotted a good sale for them.

The one thing I hate the most about DLC is when they don't release a full pack.
I'm still waiting for that cancelled DA2 ultimate edition, even though I might actually not buy it because EA[sub](it's a "good enough" action-rpg for me)[/sub]

[font color=grey][sub][sub][sub][sub]Flamehield.jpg goes here[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/font]

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

DING DING DING DING DING DING!

And furthermore, I straight up don't buy the "But my game feels incomplete without the DLC!" argument. I'M the one diagnosed with a disorder that makes me "extremely sensitive to incompleteness" (doctor's words, not mine), and I feel the effects very often when eating a meal or shopping for furniture or collecting stuff, yet even I don't feel massive pangs when I pass on DLC.

 

[Astoria]

I have no problem with DLC if it truely adds something extra to the game like the Fallout DLC. What annoys me is when it's something that should really have been part of the full game and they've just taken it out for the extra money, like Arkham City with the Catwoman thing. DLC for extra things like extra costumes or something small like that I see kinda pointless but then I just don't buy them.

 

[00slash00]

I really like DLC. Sure there's example of shitty DLC, like with Final Fantasy 13-2. However there's also examples of fucking amazing DLC, like Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, which I enjoyed as much as the original game, if not more so

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I'm okay with it but personally I don't buy DLC unless it's a story-based add-on.
Map packs, weapon skins, nah.

 

[LaoJim]

No I don't really like it.

The main reason is that I am an extremely cost conscious game buyer and tend to buy games which have been out for a year or more for usually about a quarter of the original price. DLC doesn't tend to drop in price the same way that physical copies of the game does so it ends up being disproportionately expensive.

At the moment there is a "negotiation" going on between the publishers and customers about how much they are willing to pay about what. Obviously the publishers are trying to maximize their profits whereas gamers want as much value as possible. Having DLC obscures how much you are actually going to end up paying for the complete game, especially with the "season passes" that are tricksy about what exactly you get.

I think DLC is fine when it is a case of a publisher having made a game and then realizing that it is more popular than they thought and releasing some more content for it based on players feedback. However these days DLC ends up being a key aspect of the sales process with everything mapped out from day one. I think a lot of gamers are naturally very cynical about this.

I'm also really not bothered about having special costumes or weapons for a game.

However there's also examples of fucking amazing DLC, like Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, which I enjoyed as much as the original game, if not more so

Haven't actually played Undead Nightmare myself, but I agree that it sounds like the sort of DLC that I can get behind. Something which takes the game world and mechanics and plays with it to create a completely different experience, one that clearly wouldn't have been part of the original game design. Far Cry Blood Dragon seems to be another good example of this.

 

[Drizzitdude]

I'm okay with DLC as a concept. It is a solid way to make games stay updated, add more content and fix previous issues. However somewhere along the way we ended up thinking it was okay to buy every 2 dollar song addition to guitar hero, and every single map pack for call of duty, which only made it seem more okay for developers to create games with this in mind. Now that is a problem.

 

[Thr33X]

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.

I'm all over this post here. Simply stated if the DLC is something I desire, then I will get it, otherwise it doesn't hurt me or my experience in the slightest. Example: Saints Row IV. So many people complaining about the weekly/bi-weekly DLC packs which come out, but is it really affecting them that much? People just complain for the sake of complaining. Personally, I've only bought one DLC thus far for the game, which was the GAT V pack, and it was more for the Knife Launcher weapon than anything else. It's cheap (price of a cup of coffer and a bagel) and it's something extra for me to mess with until the mission packs are released.

 

[SmokingBomber465]

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.

THIS.

I am firmly in your camp.

 

[krazykidd]

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.

I thought on disc DLC , was Disk Locked Content . Content that is on the disk but is locked so you have to pay for it to be unlocked . That's like buying a house , then having to pay more money for the key . That's evil and hell.

OT: I don't like DLC, and haven't bought any , i don't support DLC, in any shape, form or manner .

 

[DocHarley]

I have a love/hate relationship with DLC, which is often rendered irrelevant because I'm cheap.

I love it when DLC gives me fresh content that lets me play my uber-geared, max level character for another ten hours. I hate it when DLC feels like nothing more than the publisher trying to sell me the game twice. There's a fine line between the two, more sensed than clearly seen, but it's irritating as all hell to pay $60 only to get half a game and then get nickled and dimed for the rest of it.

But as I wrote above, I'm cheap. I almost never buy a game within a year of its release, so I usually just grab the Game of the Year bundle sitting on the "Pre-Owned" shelf of my local game store.