Poll: Downloadable Content Doesn't Belong In Games

[Dorian6]

I don't mind when a game is out for a few months, and then they release some new stuff for the game to keep things fun (Oblivion, Fallout 3).

but one thing that annoys me is when you buy a game, and there is ALREADY some DLC. Dragon Age Origins did this. Sure they gave you some stuff free with the purchase, a companion, a few trinkets of questionable usefulness. But then they want me to buy a new quest.

 

[Dawntheif]

DLC on PC is fine as it is mostly free. And by that I am looking at valve you people lurking to flame about piracy. I know your there >.>

 

[Kajt]

I. Fucking. Love. It.

But you know what's even better?

Mods.

 

[Clueless Hero]

I'm a bit "meh" on DLCs. It depends on what they're offering, which is most of the time just a $5-$10 dollar weapon, which is bull. Other comapnies need to follow Bethesdas example of DLC's, offering a decent amount of content for a reasonable price. But then again, if I own the game for PC, I can always get amazing mods for free, so there is a lot of competition that game developers to show that they know there game better than the people who play it.

 

[geldonyetich]

Can't vote. No, "it's fine, but only in the right circumstances" option.

Basically, there's a line between DLC being an underhanded way to get people to pay more money for the game versus DLC being some additional content to keep a game you like interesting.

When it's release day, you've gotten people to pay full price for your game, but there's additional vital features in DLC (I'm looking at you, Dragon Age) chances are you've gone over that line.

 

[lgmtk]

IMO DLCs are only justifiable if they add almost a whole new game, and not just 1 level or a few more chars.
Either that or dont make us pay 50 damn bucks for one title :|

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

I don't have any problems with the concept of DLC itself; in fact, I think it's great.

The problem is that DLC often has a far worse rate of gameplay vs price as a proper game or expansion pack.

For example, Dragon Age Origins is 50,- for at least 40 hours of gameplay. Warden's Keep is 7,- for at most 2 hours of gameplay. That's just out of proportions. Comparing price against length, the DLC costs three times as much as the game itself does. Sure, the price of the DLC is low so it's easy to just spend a bit of extra money for a bit of extra gameplay and write it off as an insignificant expense, but that doesn't mean you're not paying more money for less content.

 

[O maestre]

dont know if it has been mentioned but mentioned but DLC is probaly the best and only defence against piracy, so i expect DLC to play a bigger and bigger part of gaming everywhere

 

[Dragon Zero]

I really don't mind, unless the game has been so rushed that you HAVE to get it for the full experience, it can be very cool to extend the life of a game by adding content. I love Castle Crashers and if you just buy the game, you'll still get a great gaming experience, adding the King and Necromancer packs gives you some cool and useful characters, but its optional, you may just want the game and not bother with dlc.

 

[Guitar Gamer]

in moderation I see it as being justified, if you make a good quality game that has everything you'd want and and every month or so you add something good to it then I see it as a good thing, if you make a game that would be good if it wasn't so dam limited then release over priced levels that should be patches or updates then it's just bullsh,
I like it when a DLC is something worth paying 10 bucks for like The Shivering Isles for Oblivion
that was good but the limit would be Fallout 3's DLC, I hoped that broken steel would have came with the game but you had to pay 7 bucks for closure.

I. Fucking. Love. It.

But you know what's even better?

Mods.

right-o [sup]if a little profane[/sup] I'm sure that if I could use Oblivion as an example again, Bethesda would probably charged people 20 bucks for most of the free mods there were, (of course there are many more risks with getting other peoples mods but I digress)

 

[Pots]

Paying for DLC created after release is fine. Paying for DLC released on release is bad.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

I think DLC is acceptable if it's like an expansion and has a substantial amount of new gameplay. Examples: Fallout 3: Point Lookout, GTA DLC etc.

Things like overpriced horse armour and three maps for £10 suck.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I love it, they actually update the games so they don't get boring. Only DLC I played for was the Fallout 3 add-ons (two were a waste of money) and F.E.A.R. 2 Reborn (because it was half off). That is a good thing about PC, you get most of the DLC for free, so what is wrong with it?

On a side note, all the "[...] that should be been included in the first place!" bullshit is annoying. The only time I've seen an update that should have been included with the game was released was all four campaigns being playable in versus on Left 4 Dead, and I'm pretty sure that was free for everyone. So, all this other stuff should have been included with the release because you don't want to pay for it? Grow up.

 

[Cryo84R]

Gamers sense of entitlement never ceases to amaze and sadden me.

 

[cainx10a]

Borderland's DLC for PC was even worse.

Not only late, but also stealth activating SECUROM. Come on...

With Borderlands, I just want to see all those playing non-legit copies banned from steam/gamespy. And personally, the DLC for Borderlands is amazing and I love it, and I want more. :S

I just wish PC gamers would grow up. And I am a PC gamer. :s

 

[Lenny Magic]

Downloadable Content Doesn't Belong In Games.

Indeed it belongs in books quite obviously...

 

[Alphavillain]

I don't think that even the most ardent DLC hater can look at the Gay Tony and Lost & The Damned packs for GTA4 in the same way as some other DLCs out there. In other words, it depends on how much work has been put into the DLC rather than some hardcore "I have to pay for more, so I hate it". I think it stings people that play online the most, and seeing as I don't play online much, it doesn't particularly fuss me.

 

[AfroNinja117]

ok, I'm tired of people always bitching about DLC. First off, you don't HAVE to download it. it's extra content for a game that's not neccisary to play. Second off, I've seen alot of people saying "They should release the whole game all at once" and I then say "No, they shouldnt" because if they released EVERYTHING at the launch of the game, there would be no varity and no reason to keep playing once you beat it. DLC keeps the game fresh and enjoyable. Third off, they dont charge you for it because they're greedy pigs, they charge you so they can pay for the development and upkeep of their company, You want DLC to be free, fine. but dont expect companies to make more than 3 or 4 games. And my final point is this. They developers can't think of EVERYTHING they release right at the very launch of the game. So stop all your bitching and just pay 5-10 bucks for the damn thing

 

[Yokai]

What bugs me about DLC is how few companies are willing to put the effort into a full-sized expansion any more, since they can just release a bunch of unrelated DLC packs and make players happy. Now we just get short chunks of quick entertainment like the Zombie Island of Dr. Ned instead of a huge new story a la Shivering Isles.
And of course, if it's something small like a few new sets of armor or weapons, it really should be free. It's ludicrous to have to pay for little things that were probably left out of the original game so money could be made selling them as extras later.

 

[Blimey]

If the DLC actually adds cool/good content to the game, and its at a decent price, then yes it is a good thing. I don't buy it often, however I did buy the Shivering Isle's and Knights of the Nine for Oblivion on my PC, and I enjoyed them. On my Xbox I have only ever purchased map-packs for Modern Warfare 1.