Poll: DLC focus on multiplayer

[jesskit]

Something has struck my attention and I thought I might discuss it with everyone. It seems to me that many games now see DLC simply as a way of enhancing or extending multiplayer features of a game. While for very online based games such as CoD and Battlefield I understand this. But games like Max Payne, Mass Effect and others. While yes they have featured multiplayer components, these games have come from single player backgrounds. Take Mass Effect 3 for example, it is the epic conclusion to a space drama. While yes I do see how the multiplayer can be justified, they have spent so much time and money on only the multiplayer from what I can tell, without much heard about plans for the single player side. The other Mass Effect games, especially 2, had so much more DLC content to enhance the single player campaign.

For discussion I wonder what people's thoughts are regarding single player DLC v multiplayer DLC especially for a game thats focus has been the single player campaign? Is there a trend either way? Do you wish such games would focus on single player DLC, or is DLC more appropriate for multiplayer?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well for the user base it's better to have SP DLC because it's more likely they actually make something worth while and that you will actually weigh the bang for buck aspect.

But for a company the MP DLC is far better, is cheap shit and practically forces people to have it if they intend to keep up with their friends, and because players are busy finding the best "pwnage" setup that price is only secondary.
Meanwhile all semblance of balance and unified community is being shat on, for the greater monetary good.

 

[Joccaren]

Personally I'm not one for DLC at all. I Preferred expansion packs as, in general, they were more better value for money more consistently. DLC can be good value for money sometimes, but then there's a lot of DLC that isn't, and Day One DLC is a problem arising from DLC as well.

As for whether DLC should focus on SP or MP... SP as its generally fairer. MP packs usually unlock weapons, and those can be poorly balanced at times, which isn't as much of an issue in SP as it is in MP.

Both should be dealt with in expansion packs rather than DLC though [Working by average size and such, seeing as expansion packs and entire games are downloadable these days].

 

[Mikeyfell]

Focus on single player.
And not because I think Multyplayer is the cancer killing the game industry.
It's because not a whole lot of people buy DLC.
And the vast majority of multyplayer games dry the fuck up after about 6 weeks, so if you pay $10 for the multyplayer DLC and only 10 other people are still playing the game and only 3 of them have the DLC and of course they're all obsessive gurus who can't be stopped...
DLC should only ever be single player, or Co-Op but all ways playable in single.

 

[Loop Stricken]

The other Mass Effect games, especially 2, had so much more DLC content to enhance the single player campaign.

The other Mass Effect games didn't have multiplayer.

I understand what you're saying but this point still bears remembering.

 

[jesskit]

The other Mass Effect games didn't have multiplayer.

I didn't forget that. It just seems that in contrast when the multiplayer mode was added, single player DLC dropped by the wayside

 

[Rawne1980]

As i've said before, apart from the GOTY and Ultimate Editions I own, I don't touch DLC at all.

And I never will.

That being said it depends on the game and the people.

Games like CoD/Battlefield don't really have much of a campaign to start with. People buy them for the multiplayer. If people want to throw money at 5 minute to make map packs then that's where that kind of game is going for the long run. EA mentioned wanting to charge people for reloads ... I can see that happening at some point too.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

The other Mass Effect games didn't have multiplayer.

I didn't forget that. It just seems that in contrast when the multiplayer mode was added, single player DLC dropped by the wayside

Mass Effect 1 had a total of 2 DLC's, Pinnacle Station, and Bring Down the Sky.

Mass Effect 2 had more, but the only notable ones were probably Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival. The rest were day one DLC and weapons packs, or just short missions like Kasumi - Stolen Memory.

Mass Effect 3 has had Leviathan so far, and there is an Omega DLC planned/in development. ME3 looks like it'll deliver just as much in terms of Single player DLC

 

[Legion]

Multiplayer DLC I object to completely because in most cases they require you to buy it to play in ranked matches. Or they give you things that ruin the balance of the game and turn it into a "pay to win" model of gaming.

Plus in many cases they are map packs, and the maps were made before the game was even released anyway. Or they make less maps to begin with to encourage you to buy more (like Halo Reach).

Single player DLC I only like if it is something large enough and separate enough to justify making it DLC in the first place. Good examples would be the Fallout DLC's, where they add a nice new chunk to the game, but do not detract from the main story in any way should you choose not to buy them.

I absolutely despise Bioware's model for DLC where having it adds a whole new layer to the single player campaign, and you are missing out on story elements should you not have it. It is one of many reasons for why I have gotten fed up with Bioware over the last few years.

 

[Bat Vader]

I prefer single player DLC but I am fine with developers if they also want to release multiplayer DLC. I do want to see some Max Payne 3 single player DLC but at the same time the story was wrapped up nicely so there isn't a need for it. I would like to see the wedding Max and Raul talked about.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

ME3 is getting at least one more substantial campaign DLC pack, but a lot of games with both single and multiplayer modes just wouldn't be highly suited to additional singleplayer content, or vice-versa, depending on the game.

Max Payne 3 wrapped up the whole series pretty nicely, adding in some sort of new playable campaign might mess that up a little. Setting it after the events of the game would undo the more or less complete ending, having you play as another character somewhere would ruin the point of Max Payne. (A few missions in 2 had a different PC for a bit, though only a few) A prequel DLC of sorts might be somewhat more conceivable, though there already was a series of prequel missions anyway.
Battlefield 3's campaign and coop modes just sucked so much that any addition to them, without significant improvements, would just be a complete waste of time. It's far better to expand on the mode that already more or less works and what the game is suited towards, the multiplayer, than adding onto an already crappy mode.
As much as I hate to say it, I think Modern Warfare 3 did it's DLC nicely (though I don't know the prices), as much of the additional content can be played solo or locally in addition to online.
Borderlands, due to it's nature, is a big win considering you can play through all 4 packs on or offline.
I reckon Gears 3 had a kind of shonky way of doing it, in that in a lot of the DLC multiplayer and singleplayer content was stuck together in the single pack. If you aren't able to play multiplayer (or just don't want to) you'd have to grab the whole thing, and maybe have a really sub par experience playing the stuff against lameass bots or by yourself on Horde mode.

Overall it just depends on the game. If it's geared towards singleplayer, say something like Dead Space, focus the DLC on the singleplayer, if it's geared towards multiplayer, focus the DLC on the multiplayer.