Poll: Downloadable Content Doesn't Belong In Games

[rabidmidget]

The GTA IV DLC were definitely worth the money, they gave me more playtime than a lot of full games do

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

DLC is great. It adds content in between sequels, or adds more content to your favorite games. If you don't want it, don't buy it. While I agree some DLC is lackluster (Borderlands, Mass Effect), it's not like you're forced to buy it if you don't want to. There's dozens of websites out there that will review all DLC and tell you if it's worth it or not.

 

[joshuaayt]

I love excuses not to make proper game sequels! Especially ones I have to pay for.
Hey, are those pokemon events DLC? Because I'm all for them. I got an arceus, so I'll forgive Nintendo for neglecting me for so long.

 

[microhive]

Downloadable content as in how Blizzard handles them. FREE!

 

[Atheist.]

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?

Honestly, you shouldn't have to pay for DLC on Rock Band and Guitar Hero. Those are ridiculously to create. They should let people make their own songs and upload them, and allow them to be downloaded for free. RB/GH rape you for the money it actually costs to produce these things. The only real issue is the licensing of the songs..

Now maps on games like MWF 2 are usually scams, too. Especially with a game that generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, but that's a diffrent topic entierly.

To me, it would make more sense for them to release expansion packs as DLC. A map pack with 4-5 maps, a new game mode or two, and perhaps an addition of few new weapons would be worth 10 USD to me.

It's just disappointing when you see games like MWF 2 charge you for a few maps, when UT3 released their Titan Pack for free. Mind you, the Titan Pack had 16 new maps, two game modes, a new mutator, 3 new machines you can enter (vehicle/turrets,) new powerups, deployables, new characters, and enchanced AI/UI/Mod support.

 

[Admiral Stukov]

As it has been said before; They used to call 'em patches, and they used to be FREE.

 

[internetzealot1]

If you don't like DLC, then don't buy it. They only company that I've seen milk it is IW. DLC this soon should've been included on the game. But other developers use it to improve their games. Gears of War 2 has a slew of great maps thanks to DLC. Halo 3 as well. Would you rather them not make new maps? We wouldn't have Sandbox. We wouldn't even have Foundry.
Hell, Bungie gave away their first map pack for free, and they threw all the DLC maps onto the bonus disk in ODST. They didn't make the maps before the game sold and then slowly start to sell them. They released the game and then continued to support them. And we're the ones benefitting.

 

[theultimateend]

My only problem is that there is less and less incentive to produce a nice full game initially.

Don't have the time to add in as many maps as your previous game? No problem!
Don't have as many guns as before? No Problem!
Don't have nearly as many races or options? No Problem!

Because just like raising gas prices 200% then dropping them 10% people will think they are getting a deal when they are still getting fucked.

Basically the more DLC becomes accepted the less I see in games (graphics aside that is).

I don't mind DLC in theory but in practice it tends to be a good excuse to not make anything as feature filled and thrilling as you would have found in say the mid to late 90's.

In older days, DLC to full games was called "mods". It can be justified only on consoles, where you can't modify games on your own. Plus, if game is merely a basic framework on which you hang all the downloadable content, it should cost less than 60 bucks.

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

As it has been said before; They used to call 'em patches, and they used to be FREE.

Ummm no... See above.

I'm having trouble imagining a game I own where the expansion pack (or addon pack) was as small as any DLC that I've seen.

But regardless just my observation.

Also find it funny that the latest drama with DLC is the day one DLC from Bioware which I believe is owned by EA.

Then your example is Wing Commander which has Electronic Arts on the top left corner.

"Everybody rapes! It wasn't just Jack Johnny in 2009 who raped but look Jack Kohnny in 1998 raped too! If this same person did it in two different periods of time then everyone does and thusly it is a common practice!"

Extreme and silly but kind of helps put how silly it looks to me.

 

[Yubadias]

I think for something like that, DLC isn't needed, but for something like Rock Band or Guitar Hero, it's a great way to customize the player's own setlist.

 

[FactualSquirrel]

I have to say that as long as it's not straight after the game and the developers haven't held it back for the sole purpose of money-spinning, then I'm okay with it. I don't necassarily buy it, but I do if I think it makes a good game better.

 

[Shru1kan]

I think Bethesda's Fallout 3 (omitting broken steel, THAT should have been in the game to begin with) downloadable content set the standard. Each one was worth the price, then they released the GOTY edition with everything in it.

On the flip side, their DLC for Oblivion was terrible. The only one they could remotely justify was Mehrune's Razor, and that one wasn't even in the GOTY edition!

So, more fallout 3 style DLC (expansions and large questlines) is perfectly fine with me. But stuff like Horse Armor.... no.

I voted for the second option. It's a good concept, but it needs refining.

 

[Canadaftw]

Oh come on, DLC is probably one of the best innovations of this generation, you don't HAVE to get it, sheesh. For the rest of us, we can make decisions whether we think it is worth it.

Unless you play a game like Halo 3 where just about every playlist requires you to have all the mappacks. I think that DLC should be free on Xbox Live. Why? Because if you have Xbox live your already paying them 5$ a mounth and from what ive hear the price is going to go up to 10$ a mounth! I don't pay for Xboxlive just to have to pay for more stuff to be able to do alot of the things on Xbox live!

 

[gbemery]

I don't mind if it exists. If people want to spend money on it to expand their games that is their issue. What I hate about DLC, and this is something I just recently came across, for example is in DA:O I am going to a part on the world map and the only thing there was a guy asking me about finding his mule and i could get a golem. One option in the dialogue was "Download Content: We'll lets see it" well I was curious and selected it and then it trys to connect to XBL (didn't have my xbox connected) pulling me from the game. What a fucking cock slap! I am pretty sure the next dialogue option for my character should have been "Intimidate: Excuse me oh powerful robot overlords but i think the Matrix is broken!"

 

[Doc Incognito]

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?

Wait, how can you possibly call the DLC in Rock Band and Guitar Hero justifiable when they come out with a new game every year and charge you fifty or more dollars for something it takes them a week to throw together?

And I like DLC. More so when it's free, but if I like the game enough, then I'll buy some

 

[ryai458]

the DLC for MW2 is out? *girlish squeel of pleasure*

 

[Cmwissy]

I whole heartedly believe it's developer laziness/ developer greed - I thought sections of Assassin's creed 2 were left out for the story.


Then I heard the battle of forli and the bonfire of the vanities; I was looking forward to getting them perhaps in 3 - 6 months time.

And thennn......


Assassin's creed 2 release 20th november.

DLC release - end of december.

GRRRRR

WHY COULDNT OF YOU PUT IN THE GAME INSTEAD OF MAKING US PAY ANOTHER £15 OUT OF YOUR LAZINESS UBI!!!!

/rant

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Also, I hate Day 1 DLC. What, 60 dollars wasnt enough? Fuck you!

DLC should be well crafted, refreshing, and distanced from the release.