Poll: Downloadable Content Doesn't Belong In Games

[squid5580]

If a company decided to make DLC for a game, it should be free. Has long has you payed for the full version of a game you should be able to experience EVERYTHING the game has to offer and not just a part of it.

Naw even the retail games should be free. I mean why should people get paid for working on games. It makes no sense.

Who cares that the game costs 50 bucks, we should charge extra for content that should have been included in the game in the first place! That totally makes sense!

Ya so then they can delay games forever. Who doesn't mind waiting an extra year or 2 for a game to be released? I know I wouldn't have minded waiting 2 years for the full Fallout 3 experience. And I am sure Bethesda's stockholders would have been in full support of that.

You want to release the game faster but cut down on the content? Sure, not a problem! Do so, then gradually release the rest of the game for free. I should not pay for content that should have been in the game in the first place.

Congratulations on making the full circle. Why should they add extra content for free? It isn't like they don't have to work to make it. Everyone else gets paid when they work. Why do you think devs should be above that?

And lets see how gamers react when they fork out 60 bucks for a game and then realize they must (not optional) wait anywhere from a week to a year for the rest of thier game. And lets see how many go out of business before they are done giving you the full game.

If you don't feel you should then you shouldn't. You don't have to unless you want it the product.

 

[Nanaki316]

DLC is a great idea if it adds stuff to a game that might get boring without any additions. Imo Halo/COD maps are included in this, whole new places to explore, learn vantage points etc

We don't HAVE to buy the DLC as many people have said but I think if it was really cheap it would be far more popular.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

If a company decided to make DLC for a game, it should be free. Has long has you payed for the full version of a game you should be able to experience EVERYTHING the game has to offer and not just a part of it.

Naw even the retail games should be free. I mean why should people get paid for working on games. It makes no sense.

Who cares that the game costs 50 bucks, we should charge extra for content that should have been included in the game in the first place! That totally makes sense!

Ya so then they can delay games forever. Who doesn't mind waiting an extra year or 2 for a game to be released? I know I wouldn't have minded waiting 2 years for the full Fallout 3 experience. And I am sure Bethesda's stockholders would have been in full support of that.

You want to release the game faster but cut down on the content? Sure, not a problem! Do so, then gradually release the rest of the game for free. I should not pay for content that should have been in the game in the first place.

Congratulations on making the full circle. Why should they add extra content for free? It isn't like they don't have to work to make it. Everyone else gets paid when they work. Why do you think devs should be above that?

And lets see how gamers react when they fork out 60 bucks for a game and then realize they must (not optional) wait anywhere from a week to a year for the rest of thier game. And lets see how many go out of business before they are done giving you the full game.

If you don't feel you should then you shouldn't. You don't have to unless you want it the product.

You remove a small part of the game only to release it later for money. I payed 50 bucks for a game to experience the whole damn game including side quests and main quests not a part of it then have to gradually pay for bits of the game has they are released.

 

[TK421]

Map packs and paying for crap for your avatar can GTFO. Seriously, take a flying leap.[small]
(especially that effin ODST disc thing) [small][HATRED/Unbridled Rage][/small][/small]

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I don't like DLC at all. I don't pay for half a game, then pay for the rest of it later, like a lot of titles have been demanding. Constant content is a good thing, but being exploited by being charged for it is not.

 

[Kollega]

Actually in the old days they were called add-on packs and you still had to pay for them to play them, only difference was they came on a disk rather than downloaded.

Check out the covers for example Wing Commander here (yes you had to pay extra for speech):
http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/dos-games/45

I meant smaller DLC packs. Like the infamous horse armor for Oblivion. Of course larger DLC packs, which actually contain a decent amount of stuff, can still be used as full-fledged addons, only delivered digitally.

And didn't modding phenomenon come around somewhere around first Quake (around the time we were switching from DOS to Windows)? Older DOS games are not greatest example in this situation, you know.

 

[Korten12]

If there is one thing I can't stand about games these days, it's DLC. All it is is a way for companies to milk money from players who just want more. I paid 60 damn dollars for my Modern Warfare 2, and now I'm supposed to dish out and extra 10 for some new maps? And I need to pay 10 bucks to play some stupid zombie game that should have been in Borderlands in the first place?

The only games I feel that have justifiable DLC are Rock Band and Guitar Hero. They're dishing out new songs every week, so it's not like they can give it to us all on the disc. But what about those stupid additions to other games? I already paid you money, why are you leaving a piece of the game out just so you can charge me for it later?

Well rant over....what do you guys think of it?

isnt the map pack not coming out till like spring? so thats like in four... fives months? stop complaining. plus you dont need to buy them...

 

[joshthor]

dlc is a good idea that could be great. if more companies used it as an incentive to buy a product from stores instead of used (by providing one free code for 1 or 2 dlc with the game) they could make alot more money and stop alot of used games buying and piracy. though i also think there is a point where it is a bad idea. if there is dlc ready at release it should be in the main game. there is no excuse from holding content back if you spent time before the game was released to make it.

 

[pneuma08]

You remove a small part of the game only to release it later for money. I payed 50 bucks for a game to experience the whole damn game including side quests and main quests not a part of it then have to gradually pay for bits of the game has they are released.

This is where the logic breaks down, IMO. If the devs cut a small part of the game and then never release it then nothing's wrong, but if they do release it later and charge $5 for it, suddenly it's a scam? Not to even approach if the devs continue to make and subsequently release content afterwards.

It's all in the perspective. What is a "whole game"? Is Dragon Age without Warden's Keep a "whole game"? Is Starcraft without Brood War a "whole game"? What about Modern Warfare without map packs? WoW without Lich King? Fallout 3 without Broken Steel? More importantly, why or why not? It all just seems arbitrary to me.

Oh, and if you aren't happy with what you're getting for the price, the solution to that is to not buy it.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

Dee-el-see?

More like should-be-free amirite?

You are right about that.

/thread

Yeah. Being a PC gamer, I generally don't have to worry about paying for DLC, but I think companies are swaying towards putting a price tag on their precious content. After all, they're businessmen before they're gamers.

 

[Carnagath]

It needs to be purged. The only DLC I bought was for Dragon Age, which was a massive scam. I got two new areas which I completed in about 20 minutes each and stuff that should have been in the game already, like a fucking storage trunk, and the cost for those was a total of 20 E. Seriously? Never again. Get bent. I much prefer the way traditional expansion packs work, there is almost always loads of content on them, you'd need like 10 DLC's today to make up for an expansion like Shivering Isles for Oblivion, and you would end up paying 100 E. Fuck that.

 

[squid5580]

If a company decided to make DLC for a game, it should be free. Has long has you payed for the full version of a game you should be able to experience EVERYTHING the game has to offer and not just a part of it.

Naw even the retail games should be free. I mean why should people get paid for working on games. It makes no sense.

Who cares that the game costs 50 bucks, we should charge extra for content that should have been included in the game in the first place! That totally makes sense!

Ya so then they can delay games forever. Who doesn't mind waiting an extra year or 2 for a game to be released? I know I wouldn't have minded waiting 2 years for the full Fallout 3 experience. And I am sure Bethesda's stockholders would have been in full support of that.

You want to release the game faster but cut down on the content? Sure, not a problem! Do so, then gradually release the rest of the game for free. I should not pay for content that should have been in the game in the first place.

Congratulations on making the full circle. Why should they add extra content for free? It isn't like they don't have to work to make it. Everyone else gets paid when they work. Why do you think devs should be above that?

And lets see how gamers react when they fork out 60 bucks for a game and then realize they must (not optional) wait anywhere from a week to a year for the rest of thier game. And lets see how many go out of business before they are done giving you the full game.

If you don't feel you should then you shouldn't. You don't have to unless you want it the product.

You remove a small part of the game only to release it later for money. I payed 50 bucks for a game to experience the whole damn game including side quests and main quests not a part of it then have to gradually pay for bits of the game has they are released.

Or they add small parts to the full game after the fact. It's all in how you wanna look at it.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

You remove a small part of the game only to release it later for money. I payed 50 bucks for a game to experience the whole damn game including side quests and main quests not a part of it then have to gradually pay for bits of the game has they are released.

This is where the logic breaks down, IMO. If the devs cut a small part of the game and then never release it then nothing's wrong, but if they do release it later and charge $5 for it, suddenly it's a scam? Not to even approach if the devs continue to make and subsequently release content afterwards.

It's all in the perspective. What is a "whole game"? Is Dragon Age without Warden's Keep a "whole game"? Is Starcraft without Brood War a "whole game"? What about Modern Warfare without map packs? WoW without Lich King? Fallout 3 without Broken Steel? More importantly, why or why not? It all just seems arbitrary to me.

Oh, and if you aren't happy with what you're getting for the price, the solution to that is to not buy it.

It's not fare for a developer to charge the normal price for a game with removed content. If they do remove content or want to add content in the long run they should lower the price of that game then price the DLC. I'd have no problem with that. Put the game at full price THEN release DLC for 10 bucks, that I have a problem with. Yes, it's scamming the customer who expected a full experience(Side quests and main quest). Instead of experiencing the whole game, you play a part of it then have to pay for other bits of the game.

 

[Thaius]

What you're talking about is the abuse of DLC. DLC is intended to be a way of giving the players new content without making them buy an entire new game. At its core, it is an amazing idea. You're looking at the cases of abuse and saying you hate it all: no offense, but you're not looking at the whole picture.

 

[traceur_]

I agree, it's bullshit.

Fallout 3 is a major example of why all DLC should be in a game at the time of release. It's ridiculous for people who can't get DLC because we're stuck with a gimpy version that some fuckwad developer was too lazy to finish. I can't stand this "Nah, fuck it, it's good enough" attitude with developers nowadays.

If you don't have time to put something in, MAKE TIME, delay the release and finish the fucking job.

 

[pneuma08]

Spoiler

You remove a small part of the game only to release it later for money. I payed 50 bucks for a game to experience the whole damn game including side quests and main quests not a part of it then have to gradually pay for bits of the game has they are released.

This is where the logic breaks down, IMO. If the devs cut a small part of the game and then never release it then nothing's wrong, but if they do release it later and charge $5 for it, suddenly it's a scam? Not to even approach if the devs continue to make and subsequently release content afterwards.

It's all in the perspective. What is a "whole game"? Is Dragon Age without Warden's Keep a "whole game"? Is Starcraft without Brood War a "whole game"? What about Modern Warfare without map packs? WoW without Lich King? Fallout 3 without Broken Steel? More importantly, why or why not? It all just seems arbitrary to me.

Oh, and if you aren't happy with what you're getting for the price, the solution to that is to not buy it.

It's not fare for a developer to charge the normal price for a game with removed content. If they do remove content or want to add content in the long run they should lower the price of that game then price the DLC. I'd have no problem with that. Put the game at full price THEN release DLC for 10 bucks, that I have a problem with. Yes, it's scamming the customer who expected a full experience(Side quests and main quest). Instead of experiencing the whole game, you play a part of it then have to pay for other bits of the game.

You're going to need to define (I assume you mean) "fair" and "whole game" before I can understand what you mean. As it is, you address none of my concerns with your argument.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Spoiler

You remove a small part of the game only to release it later for money. I payed 50 bucks for a game to experience the whole damn game including side quests and main quests not a part of it then have to gradually pay for bits of the game has they are released.

This is where the logic breaks down, IMO. If the devs cut a small part of the game and then never release it then nothing's wrong, but if they do release it later and charge $5 for it, suddenly it's a scam? Not to even approach if the devs continue to make and subsequently release content afterwards.

It's all in the perspective. What is a "whole game"? Is Dragon Age without Warden's Keep a "whole game"? Is Starcraft without Brood War a "whole game"? What about Modern Warfare without map packs? WoW without Lich King? Fallout 3 without Broken Steel? More importantly, why or why not? It all just seems arbitrary to me.

Oh, and if you aren't happy with what you're getting for the price, the solution to that is to not buy it.

It's not fare for a developer to charge the normal price for a game with removed content. If they do remove content or want to add content in the long run they should lower the price of that game then price the DLC. I'd have no problem with that. Put the game at full price THEN release DLC for 10 bucks, that I have a problem with. Yes, it's scamming the customer who expected a full experience(Side quests and main quest). Instead of experiencing the whole game, you play a part of it then have to pay for other bits of the game.

You're going to need to define (I assume you mean) "fair" and "whole game" before I can understand what you mean. As it is, you address none of my concerns with your argument.

"Whole game "should be pretty self explanatory. When I buy a game I expect every single quest to be available from the start, not just the main quest and a few side quests then leave the major side quests out and re-package them has DLC.