Poll: Downloadable Content Doesn't Belong In Games

[Bihac]

Okay after page three, I thought I'd just skip to the end and post.

I'm against DLC as a whole, don't misunderstand I have a full understanding that companies need to make money to continue their existence.

But, DLC does seem to be increasingly diluting what's on offer in games... Saints Row 2 DLC I'm told was nothing but a selection of new cars and some attire,

MAP packs for a variety of shooting games are well misplaced, charging for just 3 maps, should come off as somewhat of a rip off to anyone if for example however -double- the number of maps on offer with a single release, by all means charge for it, but simply release it as an expansion pack... like ODST. (That was low I know...)

Fallout 3... we'll charge you for a proper ending. To have actually bought all the DLC here would have added something like 75 dollars of cost to the game (3/4ths of it's original price).

The prevalence of DLC, is increasingly making me loose interest in games on their release day's, why buy the original release, when I can wait and then just buy the full game in it's G.O.T.Y edition later?

Make no mistake I'm not against -expansion- packs. Expansion packs have a tendency to add something of value to a game. DLC's however tend to be increasingly the productions of whimsical dart tosses, or attempts to fix the original game, that the makers don't want to give away for free.

(Also: Almost 1am, apologies for any grammar, and incoherency).

 

[seizon]

Much like the previous poster, I read the first few pages then skipped ahead.
I am all for DLC, if it adds to you the game you have just finished. Fallout 3
is a good example. Having already finished the game, I got Operation Anchorage
(SP sucks i know). I was disappointed by how easy it was until I began a new game.
Then it became fun, but the rewards made the rest of game trivial.
DLC is fine as long as it adds a reason to play a game you have already experienced,
but does not take away some of the fun of the original game, then it just becomes a cheat.

 

[Inco]

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

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

Two damn right quotes just here.
DLC released on launch is a obvious cop-out, as they are making you pay for features on the CD, like yea, i understand that you have to ensure that you get less piracy/ pre owned sales, but that is ridiculous. As we have to pay full retail (maybe more) then an additional bit to get a feature that should have been on the disk.
After release DLC are ideas that are EXTRA and are added onto the game, not parts of the already made game.

With Cryo, i agree. They feel that they deserve free DLC, but forget the fact that game developers need to make money. Hell, half the time, they just complain about how buggy it is, or crap it was anyway, regardless of quality. Like they also fail to realize that the addition of DLC adds more bugs to the established game that cannot be fully tested. And..
Oh well, who am i kidding, its late so ill get to the point. Gamers in general are whining spoilt brats who think they deserve so much. With Everything that occurs (the more DLC that comes out), i get pushed into this mentality further.

EDIT-

Yeah, who the hell wants to actually get paid for the work they do on games? Fuck 'em, they should work for free and not ***** about giving us all the extra content we want without us ever having to pay a dime!

Seems Funk thinks along the same lines as myself.

 

[FROGGEman2]

dlc needs to be more justifiable....
Half the time it feels more like developers are rushing out a half finished game at full price (or more if your IW) Whilst in the process of making, or thinking up dlc for it... IMO developers shouldn?t need to release dlc for a game if they actually spent the necessary time making a FULL game in the first place.

As a pc gamer (here we go) map packs and stuff which is now classed as dlc were called patches... and were FREE! Now we have to pay for stuff like that because of this dlc generation were stuck in. Oh and before im slated as a console hater, i own a 360.

You don't really have to worry here.
[HEADING=1]I AM A PC GAMER & PROUD OF IT.[/HEADING]

See? No flames.

ARGLBLARGLBLARG... I lie.

I'm only envious of you.

And your avatar (I never quite got that illustration... or the chaos theory in general... care to 'xplain?)

OT

I think it's good. Developers need more money.

Yeah.

I said it.

Gamers always complain about this shit, but developers are normally only just scraping by, unless they're IW... it also adds some nice ideas to add extra packages, keep gameplay flowing or tell alternate stories.

EDIT

Re-reading other people agreeing with me, I feel a little bit silly 'bout the "I said it" thing, but I ain't goin' back t' edit 't!

 

[zacaron]

DLC was good when it was REAL when the companys developed a full game and then later on came back and added more to it like the Nazi zombies packs for COD 5 but now the companys are just giving us smaller games cause there will be DLC later on

 

[ScruffyTheJanitor]

I judge DLC on a case-by-case basis. Some DLC (I'm looking at you here, Fable 2) sucks, and isn't worth the price. However, some is fantastic (Shivering Isles, for instance).

Exactly the point. SOME DLC is worth the price you pay. But that said, it is very much a matter of oppinion. From my experience and from what I've heard... most of the DLC these days is not worth the price tag the companies put on it.

Unless you've exhausted the supply, I would always find buying a new game to have more entertainment that DLC for the equivalent price.

 

[Twad]

Its just a convenient way to realease imcomplete games, and we pay for the stuff when it should have been included in for free in the first place. COuntless games are doing it now.

 

[AceDiamond]

DLC is the natural progression of advancement from expansion packs

so it's going to stay.

 

[Megazell]

If the DLC is not free. It's not worth messing with.

 

[sramota]

DLC should be fluff ONLY imo..
Like Shale

 

[Zombie Nixon]

DLC is fine as long it's an honest expansion, rather than making us pay for something that's already on the disk.

I can't see any way to justify stuff like the sims 3

 

[UltimatheChosen]

I judge DLC on a case-by-case basis. Some DLC (I'm looking at you here, Fable 2) sucks, and isn't worth the price. However, some is fantastic (Shivering Isles, for instance).

Exactly the point. SOME DLC is worth the price you pay. But that said, it is very much a matter of oppinion. From my experience and from what I've heard... most of the DLC these days is not worth the price tag the companies put on it.

Unless you've exhausted the supply, I would always find buying a new game to have more entertainment that DLC for the equivalent price.

See, now, saying that buying a game is "always" better... that's missing the point. DLC is cheaper, and sometimes it IS worth its value. Furthermore, it can give extra life to a game that you already know and love. If you don't have enough spare cash to buy a whole game, DLC can also be a nice way to still get some entertainment (as long as it's good DLC)

 

[pickle weasel]

I don't mind if its worth what you pay for, or if they have honestly just though of something up and want to add it to the game. But releasing a DLC straight after it's release i hate, why couldn't they just include in the original game? Those ones are just greedy and i don't buy them.

 

[TelHybrid]

Overdone thread is seriously fucking overdone.

OT: If it's a full expansion then I don't mind paying, for example Wipeout HD's Fury expansion. That was good.

If it's crap like unlocking a mode already on the disc (I'm looking at you Capcom) or just an extra mission or 2, or costume packs, or Multiplayer map packs, it should be free.

 

[clipse15]

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?

Do you know how much songs could have been fitted on the original release discs? And how many DLC is prepped before game release?

O ok so then you just don't know anything about having to pay for licences do you? They can't just release DLC for free they have to pay the record labels for distribution rights. That's the reason that if you want to transfer Rock Band 1 songs between Rock Band 2 you have to pay 5 dollars.

Then explain to me why there are free packs as well?
Because I really can't imagine EA or Activision willingly taking a loss there.

Those packs probably have a sponsor or the record label didn't feel like charging EA or Activision to distribute the song or *GASP* EA or Activision footed the bill.

 

[Danistuta]

I can't stand DLC. I refuse to buy it on principle. Any additional content created for a game post-release should either be free or incorporated into future sequels.

 

[Zai]

I can't even comprehend the mindset that proclaims that "omg dlc is always a ripoff and should be burned at the stake heeeeeeeeng".

DLC almost always has a place in gaming. For example, my friend has LittleBigPlanet. And he's constantly buying the new costumes for a buck or two. Do I get him crap for wasting his money? You bet. Does he feel like he's wasted his money? No. He loves it! I couldn't tell you why, but he's perfectly happy spending the money for that.

Just... Where do some of you think this content comes from? It's not just one guy going in for an afternoon, coding up some zombies, and calling it a day. It's not just pulling a lever on "Da DLC Masheen" and watching it print money. These are people who go in to work every day and try to come up with the best thing they can possibly make. Sure, they miss the mark (Horse Armor, I'm looking at you), but a lot of the time they hit it (I don't care what you say, Broken Steel is probably one of the finest pieces of DLC I can think of right now).

Making games in the highest end engines (You know, the ones most everything uses nowadays?) takes hundreds of manhours just to make the models, much less coding new quests and voice acting. This isn't as painless an endeavour as some want to make it out to be, it's generally the result of a lot of work put into the game.

 

[JWAN]

Are you just mad because you couldn't get the titties in The Saboteur?...

If your going to make a poll make a thread to go along with it and don't load the title. It makes you look like you work for MSNBC.
--------------------------------------------
Some of it is acceptable. For example I liked 2142's advertisements for dual core and quad core. I found it kinda funny.